Joy Alison Gordon Casey

This is a costs ruling following a complex fourteen-day combined family and civil trial.

The trial involved equalization payment disputes between spouses exceeding $10.5 million, unequal division claims, post-valuation date adjustments, fraud and oppression allegations, and a civil action for fraudulent conveyancing.

The husband was ordered to pay the wife an equalization payment of $1,054,267 and the wife was ordered to pay the husband $1,000,000 for oppression and punitive damages.

The court addressed costs claims from the wife and a third-party defendant, finding the civil action unnecessary and awarding limited costs to the wife for a specific pre-trial motion, while awarding substantial costs to the third-party defendant who successfully defended against fraud allegations.

The defendant, Kadah Dematas, was found guilty of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm against two police officers.

The court considered aggravating factors, including his serious criminal record and the nature of the offences against law enforcement, and mitigating factors, such as his youth, efforts at rehabilitation, and Indigenous and racialized background (Morris and Gladue principles).

The court imposed a total penitentiary sentence of 30 months, with significant pre-sentence custody credit, and ancillary orders including a DNA sample and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The applicant, Aaron Stewart, brought a motion challenging the facial validity of a search warrant for his residence at 270 Church Street, Belleville, arguing it was deficient for failing to specify the unit to be searched in a multi-unit dwelling.

Police obtained the warrant believing it was a single dwelling, but discovered it contained two Airbnb units upon execution.

They confined their search to the applicant's unit (Unit A) and found drugs and currency.

The court found no Section 8 Charter breach, distinguishing the case from R. v. Ting and aligning it with R. v. Iraheta, as the police acted reasonably and confined their search to the target's unit.

Alternatively, if a breach occurred, the evidence would be admissible under Section 24(2) of the Charter, considering the seriousness of the conduct, impact on the accused, and society's interest in a trial on the merits.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

Tyri King-Joseph pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm, a prohibited device (extended magazine), and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Police found these items during a search warrant execution at his residence.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence, while the defence argued for a community sentence, citing the offender's reduced moral culpability due to a history of racism, racial profiling, and personal challenges, exacerbated by the lack of a social context report.

The court considered the aggravating factors, particularly the "toxic combination" of guns and drugs, and the mitigating factors, including the guilty plea, lack of criminal record, and rehabilitation efforts.

The judge imposed a 32-month sentence, reduced to 20 months after a 12-month Downes credit for strict bail conditions and systemic delays in obtaining a social history report.

An 18-month probation, lifetime weapons prohibition, and DNA order were also imposed.

A conditional sentence was deemed inappropriate given the gravity of the offences.

This is a ruling on a motion to disqualify a witness, Gabrielle St. George, in ongoing matrimonial and civil litigation.

Vito Ierullo sought to call Ms. St. George, the estranged sister of Rae Marie Ierullo (referred to as Ms. Adragone), to provide evidence concerning a loan assignment, the transfer of a family home, and allegations of forgery and fraudulent documents.

Rae Marie Ierullo objected, arguing the proposed evidence was largely hearsay, lacked direct knowledge, and was motivated by ill-will.

The court found the evidence to be speculative, based on animus, and largely hearsay, concluding that its admission would unnecessarily expand the scope of the trial into collateral family and estate issues.

The motion to permit Ms. St. George to testify was dismissed.

This mid-trial ruling addresses the qualification of an expert witness, D.J. Myles Martin, proposed by the applicant (Rae Marie Ierullo) in a combined family and civil trial concerning business valuations.

The respondent (Vito Ierullo) challenged the expert's qualifications.

The court applied the Mohan and White Burgess tests for expert admissibility, considering factors such as formal education, professional qualifications, experience, and independence.

The court declined to qualify the expert, citing his lack of formal CBV accreditation, limited litigation support experience, and an undisclosed social relationship with the applicant, which raised concerns about his objectivity and non-partisanship.

The accused was charged with possession of a loaded, prohibited handgun and breaches of court orders prohibiting weapon possession.

At trial, the defence brought a Charter application under section 24(2) seeking exclusion of the firearm and related evidence, alleging violations of section 10(b) (right to counsel without delay) and section 10(a) (right to be informed of reasons for arrest).

The Crown conceded a breach of section 10(b) with respect to a portion of the delay between arrest and access to counsel.

The court found serious and unjustified breaches of the right to counsel spanning approximately 4.5 hours, with particular concern regarding the deliberate failure of senior officers to record their interactions and decision-making.

The court excluded the evidence under section 24(2), finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm and drug-related offences following his arrest during a police investigation into drug trafficking and firearms storage at an apartment complex in Scarborough.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and search, alleging breaches of Charter sections 8 and 9.

The court found that although the arrest was precipitous, the officers had reasonable and probable grounds based on the totality of circumstances, including confidential source information about drugs and firearms, observations of an apparent drug transaction involving another suspect, and the accused's proximity to that suspect.

The court dismissed the Charter applications and found the accused guilty on all counts.

The defendant was charged with multiple drug and firearm offences following his detention and arrest on Lawrence Avenue East in Scarborough.

The Crown's case relied entirely on evidence obtained during the detention and subsequent search of the defendant's satchel.

The defendant brought a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of his detention, arrest, and search.

The court found that the plain-clothes officer's testimony regarding observing a hand-to-hand drug transaction was not credible and was contradicted by CCTV evidence, making it physically impossible for the officer to have witnessed what he claimed.

This rendered the detention arbitrary and unlawful, violating the defendant's section 9 Charter rights.

The search of the satchel, being incident to an unlawful arrest, violated section 8 rights.

The court found no violation of section 10 rights.

Under section 24(2), the court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of the Charter breaches, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Without the excluded evidence, the Crown could not prove its case, resulting in acquittals on all counts.

The Plaintiffs, minority shareholders, moved for summary judgment against the Defendants, majority shareholders and a related corporation, alleging breaches of a shareholders' agreement and oppressive conduct under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The Defendants failed to respond to the motion.

The court found that the Defendants had treated the Plaintiffs oppressively, breached the shareholders' agreement by selling property without consent, disbursing funds improperly, and failing to transfer shares despite receiving payment.

The court granted declarations of oppressive conduct and breach of agreement, ordered specific share redemptions, reimbursement for mortgage payments, and joint and several liability for the Defendants.

The Defendants' counterclaim was dismissed.

Punitive damages were denied due to insufficient notice, but full indemnity costs were awarded to the Plaintiffs due to the Defendants' oppressive conduct and lack of viable defense.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion for partial summary judgment, where the motion judge found insufficient evidence to precisely identify the intellectual property sought to be protected.

Applying the strict test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4), the court found no conflicting decision on principle and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the order, despite minor issues with the motion judge's articulation of legal tests.

The court also determined that the matter did not raise questions of general or public importance.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff, One Street Digital Inc. (OSD), brought a motion seeking a final order declaring its ownership of proprietary software ("Foundation Framework"), restraining the defendant, Berkeley Payment Solutions Inc. (BPS), from using or altering it, and requesting costs.

The court dismissed OSD's motion, finding that OSD failed to provide sufficient evidence to precisely identify the non-copyrighted proprietary software it claimed.

The court also determined that the relief sought was analogous to injunctive relief, and OSD did not demonstrate irreparable harm, as potential damages related to licensing fees and intellectual property value could be adequately assessed at trial.

Following a non-jury trial in which the plaintiff recovered damages and the defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed, the parties were unable to agree on costs and prejudgment interest.

The court determined that no Rule 49 offers engaged the enhanced cost consequences under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Costs were therefore awarded to the successful party on a partial indemnity basis, with the court fixing a reasonable hourly rate and approving trial preparation and attendance time as proportionate to the complexity of the dispute.

The court also addressed disbursements, rejecting the argument that mediation costs should be excluded.

Prejudgment interest was awarded at the standard rate of 4.3% pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act, with no special circumstances justifying a departure.