Jonathan Margolin

The defendants, excluding Justin Noseworthy, brought a motion to set aside a prior order from January 31, 2023, which had dismissed their motion to adjourn trial and ordered costs against them.

They argued that the plaintiff had misled the court by later increasing the number of witnesses, leading to the trial's adjournment.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the additional witnesses would not have changed the original decision to refuse the adjournment.

The court emphasized that reopening a motion is reserved for exceptional circumstances and that the plaintiff's actions did not constitute misleading the court.

The court also maintained the prior order prohibiting further motions without leave due to the parties' history of unnecessary motions.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a substantial indemnity basis due to the defendants' unfounded allegations of misleading the court.

The plaintiff moved for default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff was hired under a fixed-term contract that classified him as an independent contractor.

The court found that the plaintiff was misclassified and was in fact an employee or dependent contractor.

The court also held that the termination clause in the contract was unenforceable because its 'for cause' provision violated the Employment Standards Act.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for the balance of the fixed-term contract, unpaid wages, vacation pay, and holiday pay, but claims for punitive and moral damages were dismissed.

A young person was charged with sexually assaulting another young person at a party.

The Crown proceeded by indictment.

The accused pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial.

The Crown called the complainant and a witness.

The defence called a witness whose evidence contradicted the complainant's account.

The court applied the principles from R. v. W(D) and assessed the credibility and reliability of all witnesses.

The court found the defence witness to be neither credible nor reliable due to his extreme intoxication, delayed recollection, implausible explanations, tendency to infer facts rather than observe them, apparent motive to fabricate, adoption of a defence advocate role, and inconsistency with accepted evidence.

The court found the complainant to be credible and reliable despite some minor inconsistencies.

The court concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused sexually assaulted the complainant and found him guilty.

The parties were involved in a custody dispute over their five-year-old daughter.

The mother brought a motion for the return of the child after the father overheld her following an access visit, while the father brought a motion for temporary custody within his underlying motion to change.

The father alleged that the mother's new partner excessively disciplined the child and treated her poorly.

The court found that the child was treated like a stepchild in her own home and that the new partner's discipline was excessive.

The court granted temporary joint custody, with the child's principal residence to be with the father.