Joseph R. Henderson

Following a trial under the Construction Lien Act involving a commercial renovation contract dispute, the court had awarded judgment to the plaintiff contractor for the net unpaid contract balance after accounting for deficiencies.

The present decision addressed the issue of costs.

The court rejected the defendants’ submission that success was divided and held the plaintiff was the successful party because it obtained a monetary judgment.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis, but the court reduced the claimed counsel fees and expert disbursements to ensure proportionality with the modest amount in dispute and the relatively low to moderate complexity of the case.

The appellant mother appealed an order of the Ontario Court of Justice that made her child a Crown ward without access following a summary judgment motion brought by the child protection agency.

The appeal challenged only the no-access component of the order.

The court held that the motion judge failed to analyze the statutory criteria governing post‑wardship access under the Child and Family Services Act, including whether the relationship was beneficial and meaningful and whether access would impair adoption prospects.

The judge also failed to address the child’s best interests and provided inadequate reasons, while later varying the access order without ensuring the mother or her counsel were present to make submissions.

The appeal was allowed, the no‑access order was set aside, and the access issue was remitted for trial.

The accused applied for a bail review under s.520 of the Criminal Code after a justice of the peace ordered detention on all three grounds under s.515(10).

The accused faced charges including attempted murder with a firearm, assault with a weapon, pointing a firearm, and robbery with a firearm arising from a planned armed robbery connected to a drug transaction.

The defence argued that there were material changes in circumstances, including a closer relationship with proposed sureties and a stricter supervision plan involving house arrest.

The court reviewed the strength of the Crown’s case, the accused’s criminal history, flight risk, alleged gang associations, and the adequacy of the proposed sureties.

Concluding that the Crown’s case had strengthened and that the sureties lacked sufficient influence or ability to control the accused, the court found detention remained justified on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

A contractor commenced a construction lien action seeking payment for renovation and rehabilitation work performed on a 14‑unit residential building.

The owners disputed entitlement to several claimed extras and asserted set‑offs for incomplete and deficient work.

The court interpreted the contract documents collectively, finding certain alleged extras fell within the original contractual scope while others were compensable, including electrical work allowed on a quantum meruit basis and limited delay costs.

The court held the owners wrongfully terminated the contract prior to completion.

Damages were calculated as the contract price plus allowable extras, less completion costs and proven deficiencies, resulting in judgment for the contractor.

Following a jury verdict finding the accused guilty of sexual assault and extortion arising from the same incident, the court considered the application of the Kienapple principle prohibiting multiple convictions for the same delict.

The court analyzed whether there was both a factual nexus and a legal nexus between the offences.

The threats used to induce sexual activity and the sexual acts themselves occurred in the same location, in immediate succession, and formed part of a single course of conduct.

Because the elements of the particularized extortion offence subsumed the elements of sexual assault, the offences shared the same underlying cause.

The court held that the Kienapple rule applied and stayed the sexual assault conviction while entering conviction for extortion.

Following dismissal of a civil action alleging negligence and defamation against a credit reporting agency, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The successful defendant sought recovery of trial and preparation costs after a two-and-a-half-day trial involving a self-represented plaintiff.

The court considered the importance of the proceeding, its moderate complexity, the absence of wasted time, and a prior settlement offer proposing dismissal without costs.

The defendant was awarded partial indemnity costs, including counsel fees and disbursements, fixed at $17,301.45 payable within 30 days.

During a sexual assault trial, the Crown sought to introduce evidence that the complainant applied under the Mandatory Blood Testing Act, 2006 for an order requiring the accused to provide a blood sample for communicable disease testing.

The court held that the application constituted a prior consistent statement intended to bolster the complainant’s credibility regarding the occurrence of sexual contact.

The court rejected the Crown’s argument that the evidence formed part of the narrative of events.

Because the accused had not raised allegations of recent fabrication or lack of recent complaint, the evidence was inadmissible at that stage of the trial.

The court noted the issue could be revisited if the defence later opened the door through cross-examination.