John R. Sproat

The offender, Lezane Okimaw, pleaded guilty to impaired operation causing bodily harm after a head-on collision that resulted in devastating, life-altering injuries to the victim.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a high blood alcohol concentration and the severity of the victim's injuries.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, guilty plea, remorse, and sustained sobriety since the incident.

Crucially, the court applied Gladue principles, recognizing the profound impact of intergenerational trauma from residential schools on the offender's moral blameworthiness and addiction.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defence proposed an eighteen-month conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 21-month conditional sentence, followed by 18 months of probation, a 21-month driving prohibition, and mandatory weapons prohibitions, finding that a conditional sentence was appropriate given the Gladue factors and the offender's rehabilitation efforts, and would not endanger community safety.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying his claim for a psychological impairment entitlement arising from a 2006 workplace injury.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing psychological conditions, work history, multiple sources of pain, substance use, and relationship breakdown were the primary factors, and that the workplace injury was not a significant contributing factor.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's factual findings were reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding it lacked jurisdiction to award punitive damages for statutory accident benefits claims.

The appellant argued the LAT had jurisdiction or, alternatively, that section 280 of the Insurance Act was unconstitutional for eliminating punitive damages claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT's jurisdiction is strictly statutory and does not include punitive damages, as established by binding Court of Appeal precedent.

The court also rejected the constitutional challenge, finding the legislature clearly and validly removed jurisdiction over these claims from the courts to the LAT.

The applicant, T.D., brought a Charter s. 11(b) application for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay in a sexual assault case.

The total delay was 55.6 months.

The court deducted 308 days for defence delay and other exceptional circumstances not related to the pandemic.

Applying the principles from R. v. Agpoon and R. v. Jordan, the court recognized the systemic and pervasive impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as a discrete exceptional circumstance, deducting an additional 14 months for pandemic-related delay.

Despite these deductions, the net delay remained in excess of the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court cases.

Consequently, the application for a stay of proceedings was granted.

The applicants, charged with cannabis and proceeds of crime offences, brought Charter applications to exclude evidence seized from their residence and coffee shop.

They alleged breaches of ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter.

The court found multiple s. 8 breaches: the search warrant contained the wrong address (rendering it a warrantless search), the Information to Obtain (ITO) failed to disclose reasonable grounds to search the apartment, and the police executed a 'no-knock' entry without justification.

The court dismissed the s. 7 claim that police planted evidence.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and excluded the seized cannabis and cash.

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) investigated a cheating scandal involving the November 2021 licensing exams.

Based on statistical anomalies, the LSO voided the applicants' exam results and their registration in the licensing process without holding a hearing.

The applicants sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court held that while voiding the compromised exams was a reasonable administrative measure, voiding the applicants' registration and imposing regulatory sanctions without a hearing breached procedural fairness.

The court quashed the punitive sanctions and remitted the matters to the LSO.

In a medical malpractice action arising from catastrophic injuries inflicted on a newborn by his biological mother, the plaintiffs alleged that a family physician and a pediatrician negligently failed to report child protection concerns under s. 72 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court found that the family physician conducted adequate mental health and coping assessments, and that neither physician had reasonable grounds to suspect the infant was a child in need of protection.

Although the family physician breached the standard of care by not providing the pediatrician with a fuller mental health history, that breach had no causal consequence.

The court further held that, even if a report had been made, the Children's Aid Society would likely have treated the matter as low risk and would not have intervened in time to prevent the assault.

The action was dismissed, with damages nonetheless fixed by agreement at $13,250,000 under Rule 7.08.

This is a costs endorsement following a six-day family law trial.

The court considered the parties' written submissions, the divided success on various issues (net family property, chattel valuation, spousal support income, retroactive spousal support, spousal support amount/duration), and the reasonableness of settlement offers.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $69,739.08.

The respondent argued for no costs due to divided success and alleged lack of proper billing advice from her former counsel.

The court deducted costs related to previous motions where costs were already awarded or denied, and further discounted the applicant's claim by 25% for time spent on an issue where the respondent was successful (health and ability to work).

The court found the respondent's settlement position "extreme" and unreasonable, making settlement impossible.

The respondent father was successful in obtaining a temporary order for equal parenting time and sought costs of the motion.

The father had made an offer to settle for equal parenting time, while the applicant mother's offers were premised on unequal parenting time.

The court awarded the father costs of $3,400, representing approximately 70% of his actual costs, noting his reasonable offers to settle.

The court also ordered that the mother's payment of costs be deferred pending the determination of her claim for child support arrears.

The parties separated after a 9-year relationship and 7-year marriage.

The respondent sought an unequal division of net family property, alleging the applicant depleted assets through undisclosed RRSP withdrawals.

The court dismissed this claim, finding the funds were used for family expenses and the high threshold for unconscionability was not met.

The court also resolved disputes over the valuation of chattels.

On spousal support, the court accepted the respondent's evidence of severe disability (fibromyalgia and other conditions) and awarded non-compensatory support of $1,680 per month for 7 years, based on the applicant's income of $135,000 and the respondent's income of $23,000.

A divorce was granted, and the applicant's request for a no-contact order was dismissed.

The parties separated after living together for 17 years.

The applicant advanced a constructive trust and unjust enrichment claim regarding a 100-acre property owned by the respondent, which she was in the process of selling.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 45.01 requesting that 50% of the net proceeds of the sale be held in trust.

The court found the balance of convenience favoured granting an order, but instead of holding funds in trust, ordered the respondent not to encumber her newly purchased property or dissipate the net proceeds of the sale.

The plaintiff sued his former lawyer for negligence, alleging that a 1999 settlement of his accident benefits and tort claims was improvident.

The defendant lawyer brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known within five years of the settlement that his income was inadequate to meet his needs, which would give rise to a plausible inference of liability.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final consent order regarding parenting time.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the mother unilaterally reduced the respondent father's parenting time to weekends.

The father sought a temporary order returning to the pre-pandemic equal parenting schedule.

The mother opposed, citing the children's special needs and their recent progress at school.

The court granted the father's request for equal parenting time, finding it in the children's best interests, but granted the mother temporary sole responsibility for educational and health care decisions to reduce conflict.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to reinstate his parenting time after the respondent mother withheld the children based on allegations of physical abuse and excessive drinking.

The mother had reported the allegations to police and child protective services, but no restrictions had been placed on the father's parenting time by the agency.

The court ordered a temporary 5-day alternating parenting schedule pending an early case conference and the completion of the agency's investigation.

The applicant brought a section 8 Charter application to exclude evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) was misleading and failed to disclose reasonable grounds.

The court applied the standard of review for search warrants, finding that despite some minor errors and omissions, the amplified record contained reliable evidence that might reasonably be believed on which the warrant could have issued.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was involved in a bank fraud scheme and that evidence would be found in his home and vehicle.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought a prescriptive easement over a lane on the defendant's adjacent farm property to access their landlocked parcel, as well as damages for trespass after the defendant removed a boundary fence and trees.

The court found that the plaintiffs and their predecessors had used the lane continuously from 1965 to 2002 with the acquiescence of the previous owners, establishing an easement under the doctrine of lost modern grant.

Relying on expert surveyor evidence, the court determined the boundary line was the centre of the historic snake rail fence.

The court held the defendant trespassed by removing the fence and trees, awarding the plaintiffs $35,000 in damages.

The applicant challenged the administration of his mother's estate by his sisters, the respondent executors.

The deceased was a hoarder, and the executors spent significant time cleaning and repairing her house to prepare it for sale.

Although the Will prohibited executor compensation, the court awarded the respondents $29,250 for their physical labour, finding it fell outside normal executor duties and significantly benefited the estate.

The court also approved the respondents' out-of-pocket expenses and found their method of distributing personal effects was fair.

Following a trial on child and spousal support, the respondent sought to re-argue the applicant's entitlement to spousal support.

The court dismissed this as an abuse of process, finding no evidentiary basis to infer post-separation income increases.

On the issue of costs, the court found that the respondent conducted the eight-year litigation in bad faith by failing to disclose relevant documents, stonewalling the income valuation process, and habitually breaching court orders.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $193,000 on a full recovery basis under Family Law Rule 24(8).

The offender was sentenced for multiple offences, including aggravated assault and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, after trespassing on the victim's property and repeatedly attacking him with an ATV.

The unprovoked attack left the victim with catastrophic, life-altering injuries, including a traumatic brain injury.

Considering the offender's extensive criminal record and the devastating impact on the victim, the court imposed a total sentence of 5 years' imprisonment, along with a 15-year driving prohibition and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

Following a trial to determine the value of the matrimonial home, the court assessed costs.

The applicant contended the home was worth $260,000, while the respondent valued it at $414,000.

The court determined the value to be $392,000, making the respondent the successful party.

As the applicant failed to beat the respondent's offers to settle and the respondent did not better her own offer, the court awarded the respondent costs representing 75 percent of her legal fees, totaling $14,682.25.