John Sipos

The applicants, maternal aunt and uncle, sought custody of two nieces and a vesting order for the respondent father's bank accounts to secure child support.

The court granted custody of the minor niece (Victoria) but denied a nunc pro tunc custody order for the adult niece (Kaitlyn), finding no jurisdiction or basis for parens patriae intervention.

The request for a vesting order was dismissed as over-reaching at this stage, but the court ordered the respondent's banks to produce account activity to assist in determining his financial obligations.

The defendants brought pretrial applications alleging breaches of their rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter, seeking the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

The charges of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking arose after police stopped the defendants' vehicle based on confidential informant tips, surveillance, and tracking device data.

The court found the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest all three defendants, making the arrests lawful and not arbitrary.

Consequently, the searches incident to arrest were also lawful.

Furthermore, the court upheld the validity of the search warrants issued for the cellular phones found in the vehicle, concluding the Information to Obtain (ITO) affidavits contained sufficient credible evidence.

The applications were dismissed.

The accused was charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking after police found 16.4 grams of the drug in his shoe during a search incident to arrest.

The arrest followed a surveillance operation triggered by a confidential informant's tip.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging arbitrary detention and unreasonable search, which the court dismissed, finding the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest.

At trial, the accused testified the drugs were for personal use to feed a severe addiction.

The court found his testimony raised a reasonable doubt regarding the purpose of trafficking, acquitting him of that charge but finding him guilty of the lesser included offence of simple possession.

This is a cost endorsement following a summary judgment motion where the defendants largely succeeded in dismissing most of the plaintiff's claims.

The defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $34,995.66.

The plaintiff proposed a lower amount of $13,135.66.

The court awarded the defendants costs of the summary judgment motion on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $27,000.00, payable within 90 days.

The court rejected the defendants' request for substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the plaintiff, and also denied their request to preclude the plaintiff from taking further steps in the litigation pending payment, noting the plaintiff's ongoing entitlement to an accounting of farm profits.

The plaintiff brought an action against her nephew and his wife, claiming a proprietary constructive trust and equitable mortgage over a farm property based on an oral agreement with her late brother to reimburse her for renovation expenses.

The defendants, who inherited the property subject to the plaintiff's life estate, moved for summary judgment.

The court found that while the plaintiff had an enforceable equitable claim against her late brother, the defendants were bona fide purchasers for value without notice.

The court dismissed the claims for a constructive trust, equitable mortgage, and partition and sale, but allowed the plaintiff's claim for an accounting of farm profits based on her life estate to proceed to trial.

A costs endorsement following a motion in construction-related litigation involving multiple parties.

The court held that two parties were entitled to independent representation on the motion but found the motion unnecessary because the governing law was clear.

Although the responding parties had a right to bring the dispute before the court, the court emphasized that unsuccessful litigants cannot expect to avoid meaningful cost consequences.

Substantial indemnity costs were declined, and proportionality concerns were considered due to the relatively small claims involved.

Costs were fixed at $5,903.60 for each successful party, payable by the opposing parties in equal shares.