Julianne A. Parfett

The plaintiff sued his insurance broker for negligence after his insurer denied coverage for a fire loss because the rental property had been vacant for over five years.

The defendant broker brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim.

The court found that the broker had discharged its duty of care by sending letters explicitly warning the plaintiff about the vacancy exclusion.

Furthermore, the property's uninhabitable state constituted an unreported material change in risk.

The court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

The Crown brought an application under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code to admit a videotaped statement of the complainant, who was 17 at the time of the alleged sexual assault.

The defence opposed, arguing the statement was not made within a reasonable time due to delays by both the complainant and the police.

The court found the delays were adequately explained and did not significantly impact the complainant's ability to accurately recall events, particularly given her age.

The application was granted, allowing the videotaped statement to be admitted into evidence.

The applicant, Awso Peshdary, sought disclosure of source documents from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) related to a 2012 CSIS Act warrant, renewing a previous request based on an alleged material change in circumstances following a Federal Court decision upholding the warrant.

CSIS and the Federal Crown opposed, arguing that the validity of the warrant had been decided by the Federal Court, precluding further challenge, and that no material change justified revisiting the prior disclosure denial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the renewed request constituted a collateral attack and an abuse of process, as it sought to relitigate the warrant's validity in a different forum after a final determination by the Federal Court.

The applicant sought to set aside an arbitration award, alleging the arbitrator breached the rules of natural justice and exceeded his jurisdiction.

The applicant argued the arbitrator unfairly denied an adjournment, admitted new expert evidence, altered the definition of disputed software, and improperly relied on a draft award provided by the respondent.

The applicant also contended the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief against non-parties.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no procedural unfairness or jurisdictional error, and ordered the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award.

The parties, who are family members, disputed which real estate agent should list the matrimonial home for sale.

The respondents were successful on the motion and sought costs.

The applicant argued costs should be postponed until ancillary issues were resolved by a Master.

The court declined to postpone costs and awarded partial indemnity costs to one respondent and substantial indemnity costs to the other respondent from the date of her Rule 49 offer to settle.

L'appelante a interjeté appel de sa déclaration de culpabilité pour conduite avec facultés affaiblies, soutenant que son plaidoyer de culpabilité n'était pas éclairé ni volontaire en raison de sa compréhension limitée de l'anglais.

Elle prétendait ne pas avoir pleinement compris les conséquences du plaidoyer lorsque son avocat anglophone les lui a expliquées.

La Cour supérieure de justice a rejeté l'appel, concluant que l'appelante comprenait les chefs d'accusation, les peines possibles et l'entente sur le plaidoyer.

La cour a souligné qu'elle avait eu amplement l'occasion de demander un interprète mais ne l'avait pas fait, et que ses interactions avec la police et son avocat démontraient une maîtrise suffisante de l'anglais pour comprendre les procédures.

The applicant sought an order for the committal of the respondent into custody to await the Minister's decision on extradition to the United Kingdom.

The respondent had been convicted in the UK of conspiracy to evade duty on imported tobacco products and of absconding during his trial.

The court found that the conduct underlying the UK convictions corresponded to Canadian offences, specifically evading duty under the Excise Act, and that the evidence provided by the UK was sufficient to justify committal for trial had the conduct occurred in Canada.

A warrant for committal was issued.

The parties, who are family members, were in an acrimonious dispute regarding the sale of a mutually-owned home and could not agree on a real estate agent.

The applicant opposed severing the lot, while the property had significant potential for severance to maximize value.

The court reviewed valuation reports from two proposed agents and an appraiser.

The court selected the agent who recognized the property's potential for severance, finding this approach would best achieve the highest fair market value.

The court ordered the property to be listed with that agent and referred remaining issues to the Master.

The respondent sought a modification of the parental schedule to achieve 50/50 custody and an adjustment to child support.

The applicant opposed the change to the parental schedule and also sought an adjustment to child support, the cancellation of drug screening tests, and an order allowing her to manage inheritance funds without the respondent's participation.

The court denied the respondent's request for a 50/50 parental schedule, citing allegations of domestic violence and the child's difficulty adjusting to schedule changes.

Child support was adjusted downwards based on the respondent's reduced income.

The frequency of drug tests was reduced from twice weekly to once monthly, acknowledging negative results but also a history of drug use.

The issue of managing inheritance funds was reserved for trial.

This costs endorsement followed a twelve-year litigation where the plaintiff's case, alleging an unfair bidding process, was dismissed in its entirety.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of over $2.8 million, citing the plaintiff's unfounded allegations of dishonesty and collusion and persistence despite prior judicial warnings.

The plaintiff argued for partial indemnity costs, disputing the quantum and the basis for substantial indemnity.

The court awarded the defendant substantial indemnity costs from the date of its offer to settle in May 2014, finding the plaintiff's continued litigation of weak claims warranted such an award.

The final costs awarded to the defendant were $1,864,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, after reductions for travel and excessive e-discovery costs.

The plaintiff, an incumbent service provider, sued the defendant community care access centre for damages arising from a 2003 Request for Proposals (RFP) process.

The plaintiff alleged the procurement process was unfair, claiming the defendant was motivated by a desire to avoid severance costs, used undisclosed criteria, permitted a conflict of interest, unfairly customized the RFP, accepted a non-compliant bid, and conducted a flawed evaluation.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that while there were minor procedural irregularities, the defendant did not breach its duty of fairness.

The court concluded the defendant had no financial motive to disfavour the plaintiff, the evaluation criteria were transparent, and the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the evaluation process.

The Applicant, Awso Peshdary, facing terrorism-related charges, sought production of materials from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) as a third-party records holder.

The request pertained to two main areas: (1) reliability assessments and financial arrangements of Abdullah Milton, a paid CSIS asset and later police agent whose credibility was a material issue, and (2) materials related to a CSIS warrant obtained against Peshdary, used to support a subsequent RCMP judicial authorization.

The court applied the two-stage O'Connor test for third-party disclosure.

It found that materials related to Milton's reliability and financial arrangements met the "likely relevance" test for trial issues and ordered their disclosure to the court for review.

However, for the CSIS warrant materials, the court distinguished between facial and sub-facial challenges to judicial authorizations, applying the narrower Garofoli test as clarified by World Bank Group v. Wallace.

It concluded that the applicant had not met the test for likely relevance for the CSIS warrant materials, as the purpose was to challenge the admissibility of evidence rather than directly bear on guilt or innocence.

The court also ordered disclosure of any notes Milton took of his interactions with Peshdary.

The Crown brought a motion for the summary dismissal of the respondent's appeal of her impaired driving conviction.

The respondent had pleaded guilty but appealed on three grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel, lack of understanding of the plea due to language difficulties, and insufficient evidence.

The court dismissed the ineffective assistance and insufficient evidence grounds, finding that the respondent received appropriate advice and that the admitted facts supported the conviction.

However, the court allowed the appeal to proceed solely on the issue of whether the respondent's language difficulties rendered her guilty plea uninformed or involuntary.

The accused, Anthony Nathan Constant-Booth, was charged with assault, assault causing bodily harm, and aggravated assault following a parking lot altercation.

The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of eyewitnesses.

The court found the accused guilty of aggravated assault for kicking one victim, Pascal Marion, in the face, but acquitted him of the other two assault charges due to insufficient evidence of common purpose or direct participation in those specific incidents.

The Crown applied for a dangerous offender/long-term offender assessment under s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code and sought to designate Dr. Philip Klassen as the assessor.

Defence counsel opposed this designation, proposing alternative psychiatrists.

The court held that while the accused has a role in the expert designation, the court should defer to the Crown's choice absent cogent and compelling reasons indicating the Crown's choice is inappropriate, such as lack of qualifications, bias, or unavailability.

The court found no such reasons to reject Dr. Klassen and rejected the defence's proposals due to potential bias (treating psychiatrist) and unavailability.

Dr. Klassen was designated.

The appellant retained the respondent law firm for his divorce litigation and failed to pay his legal accounts.

The respondent obtained a writ of seizure and sale under the Creditors' Relief Act for the unpaid trial debt.

The appellant appealed, arguing the respondent required leave under the Solicitors Act to proceed and that the accounts should be assessed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that leave was not required because no assessment of the trial debt had been requested, and the motion judge reasonably exercised his discretion in refusing to order an assessment due to the appellant's undue delay.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision where the deputy judge awarded costs without hearing submissions from either party.

The deputy judge subsequently ruled she was functus officio and could not hear submissions regarding an unaccepted offer to settle.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the deputy judge erred in law by concluding she was functus officio before hearing costs submissions, and remitted the matter back to the deputy judge to determine costs.

The applicant sought retroactive and ongoing child support, contribution to section 7 expenses, and life insurance to secure support.

The respondent sought spousal support and occupation rent.

The court found the respondent was intentionally under-employed and imputed income to him for the purposes of calculating child support.

The respondent's claims for spousal support and occupation rent were dismissed, as he failed to demonstrate economic hardship arising from the marriage breakdown and had not contributed to the matrimonial home's expenses.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging a breach of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 48 months, well above the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The court found that the case was not particularly complex and that the Crown's reliance on the previous state of the law was unreasonable, particularly given the accused's continuous pre-trial custody and the Crown's failure to mitigate delay caused by its own unavailability.

The application was granted and a stay of proceedings was entered.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, brought an application to bar the Crown from calling witnesses to testify about matters that the defence had already admitted or offered to admit.

The defence argued that calling such evidence was unnecessary and irrelevant given the admissions.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the Crown has broad prosecutorial discretion to determine how to present its case, including the right to reject defence-framed admissions and to call evidence to prove elements such as planning and deliberation, negate third-party suspect theories, and provide confirmatory evidence for unsavoury witnesses.