V. Christie

The applicant tenant brought an application for the return of moneys held by the respondent landlord following the end of a commercial lease.

The landlord claimed the tenant owed occupancy costs, utilities, and damages for move-out deficiencies.

The court found the landlord's accounting unreliable, as it was uncertified, inconsistent, and relied on hearsay evidence.

The court ordered the landlord to return $49,906.00 to the tenant, representing the funds held less conceded unpaid rent.

Claims by both parties for additional damages were dismissed due to insufficient evidence and the lack of a cross-application by the landlord.

The applicant sought a bail review, arguing a material change in circumstances due to delayed medical surgery while in custody and a new release plan including electronic monitoring.

The court found no material change, noting that the correctional centre had taken steps to schedule the surgery and could provide adequate post-operative care.

The court further held that even if a material change existed, bail would be denied on secondary and tertiary grounds due to the applicant's lengthy criminal record, history of breaches, and the extremely serious nature of the kidnapping and robbery charges.

Bail was denied.

The applicant brought a mid-trial application seeking to prohibit the complainant from participating in a s. 278.93/4 hearing and to prevent disclosure of application materials to the complainant, relying on the recent decision in R. v. Reddick which found those provisions unconstitutional.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the principles of stare decisis did not apply because Reddick was decided in the context of a pre-trial application, whereas this was a mid-trial application.

Furthermore, the court held that even if stare decisis applied, the decision in Reddick was plainly wrong as it failed to fully consider the constitutional issues in the context of a mid-trial application and misinterpreted the legislation.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault and other offences, brought a motion seeking to prohibit the complainant from participating in a s. 276/278 admissibility hearing regarding WhatsApp messages.

The applicant relied on a recent Superior Court decision (R. v. Reddick) that found the participation provisions unconstitutional, arguing that under the principles of stare decisis, the court should follow Reddick without a formal constitutional challenge.

The Crown argued that a Notice of Constitutional Question was required under s. 109 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court held that relying on a previous declaration of unconstitutionality still puts the constitutional validity of the legislation in question, thereby triggering the mandatory notice requirement under s. 109.

However, the court ruled that notice did not need to be served on the complainant.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant's representative to answer a refused question from an examination for discovery.

The underlying action involved allegations of negligent repair of an ATV.

The refused question asked the representative to agree that if the threads on the axle were intact, the only way the tire could come off was if the cotter pin was missing.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the question improperly sought an expert opinion on a hypothetical matter from a layperson.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for early documentary discovery before the close of pleadings, seeking the identities of the tenant's employees who resided at the leased property when a fire occurred, as well as the production of the tenant's insurance policies.

The court granted the request for the employees' names and contact information, applying the principle of proportionality under Rule 1.04 to allow the plaintiff to properly name the John Doe defendants and avoid future delays.

However, the court dismissed the request for early production of the insurance policies, finding it premature prior to the delivery of an affidavit of documents.

The accused, charged with sexual assault and other offences against his wife, sought a ruling on whether an application to adduce evidence of the complainant's prior sexual activity (WhatsApp messages) under ss. 276 and 278.92 of the Criminal Code could be brought mid-trial rather than pre-trial.

The court reviewed the legislative history, the purpose of the rape shield provisions, and the accused's Charter rights to make full answer and defence and against self-incrimination.

The court concluded that requiring a pre-trial application would force premature disclosure of impeachment material, potentially tainting the complainant's evidence and violating the accused's fair trial rights.

The court ruled that the application could be brought mid-trial.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder and robbery, sought a bail review under s. 522 of the Criminal Code, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court agreed that the pandemic was a material change, granting jurisdiction to review the detention order.

However, the court found that the applicant's detention remained necessary on both the secondary and tertiary grounds.

Despite a strict proposed release plan involving house arrest and electronic monitoring, the court concluded there was a substantial likelihood the applicant would commit further offences and that his release would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice given the gravity and circumstances of the alleged offences.

The applicant, a care facility operator, brought an application seeking declarations that the respondent County acted in bad faith by not renewing their annual services agreement under the Domiciliary Care Program.

The County had declined to renew the fixed-term contract due to a history of non-compliance, particularly regarding Fire Code violations and the delayed installation of a sprinkler system.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the contract had a clear end date with no automatic renewal clause, and therefore the County owed no duty of good faith to renew it.

Furthermore, the court found no evidence of bad faith, noting that the County had repeatedly communicated its concerns and provided reasons for non-renewal despite having no contractual obligation to do so.

The moving party defendants brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff in an action concerning the purchase of a vacant building lot.

The defendants had attempted to file a notice of intent to defend and a statement of defence within the required timelines, but errors by a law clerk and the plaintiff's swift action to note them in default prevented the filings.

The court applied the tests for setting aside a noting in default and a default judgment, finding that the defendants had a plausible excuse, moved promptly, and presented an arguable defence on the merits.

The motion was granted, and the noting in default, default judgment, and writ of seizure were set aside.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions and provide documents refused at discovery, primarily relating to a prior 1999 motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the prior records were irrelevant.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce the requested statement of claim, employment details, medical records, and medical/legal reports, finding them relevant to potential thin-skull or crumbling-skull issues.

The court also ordered the defendants to produce cell phone records and inquire about surveillance as requested by the plaintiff.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a noting in default, default judgment, and leave to issue a writ of possession arising from a defaulted second mortgage.

The defendant argued she was waiting for particulars and relying on a companion action against a third party.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendant had ample notice of enforcement proceedings, failed to act promptly, and presented no arguable defence on the merits.

The moving parties, named as estate trustees in the deceased's will, brought a motion to remove a notice of objection filed by the responding party, the deceased's daughter.

The responding party alleged undue influence and unfitness of the trustees but provided no evidentiary basis to support her claims.

The court found that the will was validly executed and that the responding party failed to meet the minimal evidentiary threshold required to call the will's validity into question.

The motion was granted, the notice of objection was removed, and the court directed the issuance of the Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee.

The applicant mother brought a motion to vary a temporary week-about parenting schedule for the parties' four-year-old child.

The court found that no status quo had been established as the week-about schedule was intended to be a short-term trial.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court determined that continuing the shared week-about schedule was in the child's best interests, noting the father's flexible work schedule and the child's strong emotional ties to both parents.

The motion to change the temporary schedule was denied.

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, brought an action against the trustees of her late mother's estate, seeking her share of the estate and alleging breaches of trust.

The trust was created in Quebec, the assets were located in Quebec, and the trustees resided outside of Ontario.

The defendants moved to stay or dismiss the action on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or was forum non conveniens.

The court granted the motion, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario, that Quebec was the more appropriate forum, and that the forum of necessity doctrine did not apply despite the plaintiff's physical and financial limitations.

The action was stayed and service outside Ontario was set aside.

The defendants were completely successful on a motion for third-party production of documents from the Special Investigations Unit (SIU).

They sought costs of $4,826.85 on a partial indemnity scale.

The SIU argued there should be no costs but conceded the quantum was reasonable.

The court awarded the requested costs, noting the documents were highly relevant and the SIU had opposed production based mainly on its own policies rather than the specific relevance to the litigation.