John R. Sproat

The plaintiff and defendants were partners in a real estate business.

Following the termination of the partnership, the plaintiff brought an application for an injunction, alleging that the defendants breached their duties as partners by locking her out of accounts and making misleading social media posts about the business.

The court granted an interim injunction pending an adjournment for cross-examinations, ordering the defendants to cease using the partnership name and to post an agreed message concerning the dissolution.

The payor brought a motion to change seeking to terminate child support for three adult children and spousal support due to his impending retirement for medical reasons.

The recipient opposed the termination of spousal support and sought retroactive arrears.

The court found that the payor's retirement at age 56 with an unreduced pension was reasonable given his documented health issues and the stressful nature of his employment.

The court terminated child support on consent, declined to order retroactive arrears, and ordered step-down spousal support for a transitional period, followed by nominal support of $1 per month.

The applicant and respondent separated in 2012.

The central issue at trial was determining the respondent's income for child and spousal support purposes from 2017 onwards, given his self-employment as a farmer.

The court accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the respondent's income should be adjusted to reflect actual depreciation of farm equipment rather than the Capital Cost Allowance permitted for tax purposes.

The court also imputed income for personal benefits derived from the farming operation, including rent-free housing, vehicle use, and farm produce.

The court ordered support to be calculated based on these adjusted income figures, averaging the income for future years due to the fluctuating nature of farm income.

The parties disputed the value of their matrimonial home as of the valuation date.

The applicant's expert appraised the home at $260,000 using local comparables, while the respondent's expert appraised it at $414,000 using comparables from a wider geographic area and making adjustments.

The court preferred the methodology of the respondent's expert but applied a 20 percent discount to the adjustments to account for the subjectivity of appraisals, ultimately valuing the home at $392,000.

Troy Taibinger was charged with multiple offences including aggravated assault, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, possession of stolen property, assault with a weapon, and disqualified driving, stemming from an incident where he allegedly assaulted Darren Heuchan with an ATV and stole items from nearby properties.

The defence challenged the identity of the perpetrator.

The court considered witness descriptions, DNA evidence found on a glove and a rum bottle, and the accused's out-of-court admissions and subsequent recantations.

The judge found the accused's admissions credible and his exculpatory statements unreliable.

The court also addressed a lost evidence application regarding a glove and a mitten, finding their loss insignificant.

Taibinger was found guilty on most counts, including aggravated assault, dangerous operation, possession of stolen ATV, assault with ATV, disqualified driving, break and enter, and possession of property obtained by crime for the stolen laptop and iPad.

The defendant/third-party plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to discovery questions refused by the third parties, Sierra and Hurd.

The underlying action involved a claim for $550,000 in damages for water damage allegedly caused by defective windows.

The court ordered the third parties to produce transaction documents detailing the corporate relationship and any assumption of liability between Hurd and Sierra.

The court also ordered the production of service files and complaints related to water leakage or heat loss for the windows in question, as well as a list of Ontario dealers who sold the windows.

The moving party was awarded partial indemnity costs of $4,770.79.

The accused was charged with possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, along with related offences.

The Crown relied on text messages found on the accused's phone, which were admitted under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, to prove he was dealing drugs.

The court found that the drugs, located in a closet where the accused's cousin was hiding, were in the accused's constructive possession.

The accused was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking, proceeds of crime, breach of probation, and possession of marijuana, but acquitted of weapons and ammunition charges.

The Estate Trustees applied to pass the accounts of the estate.

Two of the deceased's sons filed notices of objection, arguing that the Estate Trustees administered the estate incompetently, improperly claimed a management fee, and improperly paid certain expenses related to the family home.

One objector also claimed ownership of two rifles in the deceased's possession.

The court found little to no fault with the estate administration and approved the accounts, with the exception of disallowing the management fee because the estate consisted primarily of real estate requiring little management.

The court also ordered the return of the two rifles to the objector.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 2014 child support order, seeking retroactive and ongoing child support.

The respondent argued he had the child 40% of the time and that his income should be reduced by travel expenses to work.

The court found the respondent did not meet the 40% threshold and that commuting to a single work location did not qualify as a deductible travel expense.

Applying the D.B.S. factors, the court ordered retroactive child support from January 1, 2015, finding the respondent engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to disclose significant income increases.

The offender, Ralph Rudowski, was convicted of second-degree murder of his neighbour, Ms. Janice West.

The mandatory sentence is life imprisonment, with the court's task being to determine the period of parole ineligibility.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the victim's frail and defenceless state, the extensive and painful injuries inflicted over a considerable time, and the offender's attempt to clean the crime scene and dispose of evidence.

Mitigating factors included the offender's prior attempts to help the victim, his skewed sense of reality, diagnosed personality disorders, and a misguided belief that he was doing the victim a favour by ending her life due to her deplorable living conditions.

The jury recommended a 15-year parole ineligibility period.

The court ultimately set the parole ineligibility period at 12 years, balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the offender's extensive criminal record, the brutal nature of the assault, and the need for denunciation and deterrence, while also acknowledging the unusual circumstance that the victim's living conditions significantly contributed to the murder.

A mandatory DNA order and lifetime weapons prohibition were also imposed.

The applicant sought to restrict the respondent's in-person access to their two young daughters due to COVID-19 concerns, specifically because the respondent lived with his brother, a long-distance truck driver who made weekly runs to the United States.

The court considered the public health guidelines and the specific precautions taken by the brother.

Applying the principles from Ribeiro v. Wright, the court found that the children's interests in having in-person contact with the respondent should prevail, as the household was following public health guidelines and the risk was not significantly higher than other community members.

The motion to restrict access was dismissed, and a specific access schedule was ordered.

The applicant sought summary judgment to enforce a prior court order and Minutes of Settlement against the respondent regarding the sale of matrimonial property.

The respondent failed to comply with the prior order, did not participate in the motion, and was unable to complete refinancing as per the settlement.

The court found no material facts in dispute and granted summary judgment, ordering the immediate sale of the matrimonial property, police enforcement for vacating, and specific distribution of funds from a $50,000 payment held in trust, including substantial indemnity costs against the respondent for non-compliance.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking sole care of the parties' three-year-old child, alleging child protection concerns regarding the respondent mother.

The child had been in the applicant's care since December 2019 after a CAS worker found the respondent's home unfit.

The court found that the respondent had since rectified the home conditions and CAS had closed its file with no verified protection concerns.

Concluding there was no material change in circumstances under section 29 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court dismissed the motion and ordered the child returned to the respondent in accordance with the existing final order.

The accused, charged with second degree murder, challenged the validity of a telewarrant to search his home and the admissibility of his statement to police.

The court found the Information to Obtain contained sufficient reliable evidence for the issuing justice to grant the warrant.

The court also held that the accused's statement was voluntary, as he possessed an operating mind despite his references to demons and curses, and that his rights to silence and counsel under ss. 7 and 10(b) of the Charter were not breached.

Both applications to exclude evidence were dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault and assault causing bodily harm against his father and sister.

The appeal was based on the trial judge's erroneous application of the rule in Browne v. Dunn and an impermissible adverse inference drawn from the appellant's exercise of his right to silence when questioned by police about his injuries.

The Crown conceded the Browne v. Dunn errors but argued the curative proviso should apply.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the errors were not harmless or trivial and the evidence was not so overwhelming as to make a conviction inevitable.

The parties, married in 1998 and separated in 2016, sought resolution on spousal and child support and equalization of net family property.

The court addressed Mr. Jantzen's income for support calculations, considering his termination from employment and health issues.

Retroactive support arrears were calculated and adjusted for tax neutrality and child tax benefits.

For ongoing support, Mr. Jantzen, currently unemployed, was ordered to make reasonable efforts to secure employment and provide regular updates.

The court ordered the matrimonial farm property to be listed for sale to ensure fair market value, rejecting the applicant's request for a vesting order based on an appraisal.

The respondent's pension was ordered to be divided equally at source.

Various chattels were valued for equalization, and a divorce was granted.

Michael Schmidt appealed his conviction for obstructing a peace officer and his 60-day intermittent custodial sentence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the obstruction elements, the dismissal of third-party records and s.11(b) Charter delay applications, or the reconciliation of inconsistent verdicts.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed, varying the sentence to a one-month conditional sentence.

The court found that the trial judge erred by "jumping the Crown" on sentencing without providing counsel an opportunity to make further submissions, despite the Crown having proposed a conditional sentence.

This costs endorsement followed a six-day trial concerning custody and access, where the respondent, Jessica Mary Baran, was largely successful in maintaining the status quo of alternating weekend and mid-week access and securing sole custody.

The court found the applicant's position on shared week-about custody unreasonable, which prolonged the trial.

Despite offers made by both parties not being fully bettered in all aspects, the court determined that the applicant should pay costs somewhat greater than partial indemnity due to his unreasonable stance on custody and access.

The respondent was awarded costs totaling $28,251 plus applicable HST.

The applicant was successful on the respondent's motion and sought costs on a partial or substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the applicant acted unreasonably by failing to respond to the respondent's suggestion to mediate, which was required by a prior court order.

Had the applicant responded positively, the motion would have been avoided.

Consequently, the court awarded the applicant a reduced lump sum of $1,000 in costs.

Following a 38-day trial where the plaintiff's claim was dismissed, the successful defendant sought costs of over $2.2 million on a partial indemnity basis, but argued for substantial indemnity costs from the date the plaintiff amended its pleadings to allege bias and conspiracy.

The court denied substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiff's allegations were not made recklessly or without evidentiary foundation.

The court upheld the defendant's significant e-discovery disbursements as reasonable but ordered the defendant to produce redacted dockets for the plaintiff's review before finalizing the fee award.