Kelly C. Tranquilli

The accused pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic firearms after storing handguns for a childhood friend who was part of a broader cross-border trafficking scheme.

The accused's involvement was peripheral, driven by his drug addiction, and he made significant strides in rehabilitation over three years on bail.

Although the Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, the court found a sentence of 15-18 months appropriate due to mitigating factors, and ultimately imposed a conditional sentence order of two years less a day, balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation.

The tenants appealed and sought judicial review of two Landlord and Tenant Board decisions terminating their tenancy for persistent late payment of rent and unauthorized subletting, and dismissing their rent abatement application.

The tenants had engaged in a prolonged rent strike and vacated the unit while allowing unauthorized occupants to live there.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals and applications, holding that persistent non-payment of rent constitutes persistent late payment under s. 58(1)1 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court found no errors of law or unreasonableness in the Board's findings regarding the transfer of occupancy, the refusal to grant relief from eviction, or the dismissal of the abatement claims.

The applicant sought a declaration that her late father was incapable of granting a 2012 power of attorney for property to her brother, and an order requiring her brother to pass accounts.

The court found that while there were questions about the father's capacity, the applicant failed to rebut the presumption of capacity with clear evidence.

However, the court ordered the brother to pass his accounts from 2012 to 2025, finding cogent evidence of potential mismanagement and significant personal withdrawals from the father's bank account.

Following a partial judgment requiring the transfer of a property, the successful applicants sought costs.

The court found the applicants were presumptively entitled to costs and had obtained a result more favourable than their settlement offer.

The court fixed costs at $6,500, apportioning $3,000 to the estate and $3,500 personally to the respondent estate trustee, finding she had acted in furtherance of her personal interests as a beneficiary rather than solely in her fiduciary capacity.

The plaintiff tripped and fell on a city-owned sidewalk, sustaining serious injuries.

She alleged the municipality failed to keep the sidewalk in a reasonable state of repair.

The municipality argued the surface discontinuity did not exceed the two-centimetre threshold requiring repair under the Minimum Maintenance Standards.

Furthermore, the municipality argued its failure to conduct an annual inspection was due to the COVID-19 state of emergency and constituted a core policy decision.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff failed to prove the defect exceeded two centimetres.

In the alternative, the court held the municipality's decision to suspend sidewalk inspections during the pandemic was a core policy decision immune from liability, and the municipality established a statutory defence as it could not reasonably have known of the defect.

The applicant, a self-represented off-reserve First Nations member, sought judicial review of a decision by the Chiefs of Ontario (COO) declining to intervene and provide political advocacy regarding his personal legal disputes and broader systemic concerns.

The COO brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding it plain and obvious that the application would fail.

The court held that the COO is a private voluntary association, and its decision was not public in nature, thus falling outside the scope of judicial review.

Furthermore, the political remedies sought by the applicant were deemed non-justiciable.

An adult daughter fraudulently transferred title of her elderly parents' mortgage-free home into her own name and obtained a $760,000 mortgage from a lender.

When the daughter defaulted, the lender attempted to enforce the mortgage.

The motion judge granted partial summary judgment, declaring the transfer and mortgage void as fraudulent instruments under the Land Titles Act, and ordered the daughter to pay $150,000 in punitive damages.

The daughter appealed the punitive damages and costs, while the lender appealed the finding that its mortgage was void.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the punitive damages due to the daughter's egregious conduct and affirming that under the doctrine of deferred indefeasibility, the lender's interest must yield to the innocent homeowners.

The plaintiffs, a congregation that broke away from the British Methodist Episcopal Church ("BMEC") and a new incorporated church, brought a motion seeking an order conveying title to a historic 1866 church property — established by freed slaves who arrived via the Underground Railroad — to the trustees of the new church.

They also sought to add the Director of Titles as a party on the basis that the BMEC had filed a fraudulent Application to Change Name on the land titles register, and argued the BMEC's proprietary claim was statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act.

The court dismissed the motion to convey title, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish by evidence or legal principle that they were the present-day successors of the original Bethel Congregation trustees, and that the BMEC Act, 1913 conclusively vested the property in the BMEC.

The court further held that a vesting order application is not an action to "recover" land within the meaning of the Real Property Limitations Act, and that the BMEC's unregistered statutory interest was not extinguished.

The Application to Change Name was found not to be a fraudulent instrument but was ordered deleted from the register as made in error through an incorrect process.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision granting the municipality's application for an order to demolish above-ground construction on a contaminated property.

The appellants had proceeded with above-grade construction without a full building permit, having failed to obtain the required Record of Site Condition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings and concluding that the demolition order was a proper exercise of discretion to enforce compliance with the Building Code Act.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of two decisions by City Council to sanction him based on reports from the Integrity Commissioner.

The Integrity Commissioner found the applicant breached the Code of Conduct by making disparaging comments in emails and by disclosing confidential complaint forms to other councillors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding no procedural unfairness in the investigations, no reasonable apprehension of bias by the Integrity Commissioner or City Council, and that the findings and sanctions were reasonable.

The appellant appealed a Family Court trial decision that found the parties were spouses under the Family Law Act and ordered him to pay spousal and child support based on an imputed income of $156,841.89.

The appellant argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in assessing the relationship, awarding support, and imputing income.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no material misapprehension of evidence or error in law, and upheld the trial judge's credibility findings and support orders.

A motion to introduce fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed a warrant of committal issued for failing to pay approximately $3.5 million in child and spousal support arrears.

He also brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence on appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding the documents failed the Palmer test as they were either available at the time of the default hearing, irrelevant, or not credible.

The Court also dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge correctly applied the two-part test for a warrant of committal by finding the appellant failed to comply with the default order and failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances.

This estate application concerned whether residual beneficiaries made an enforceable oral agreement in or about 2009 to transfer estate land to one beneficiary, whose will later gifted the property to a family member.

The responding estate trustee denied any enforceable agreement and relied on s. 4 of the Statute of Frauds.

The court found an oral agreement existed based on cumulative direct and circumstantial evidence, including post-agreement conduct and contemporaneous documents.

The court held the agreement was enforceable through the doctrine of part performance, including waiver of an option over related estate land and longstanding tax payments referable to the disputed property.

Relief ordering transfer of the Bush Lot was granted, while claims for trustee removal, passing of accounts, and damages were adjourned sine die.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his request to retroactively terminate child support for his adult son and order repayment of $8,533.

The motion judge found the son remained entitled to support due to intellectual issues, including Autism Spectrum Disorder, which impeded his ability to become self-supporting.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment of the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed an order of committal and brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and the motion, with written reasons to follow.

The court ordered costs of $20,000 payable forthwith to the Family Responsibility Office and directed the reissuance of the warrant of committal, lifting the previous stay.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of a 90-day suspension of pay imposed by City Council for breaching the Code of Conduct.

The sanction followed an Integrity Commissioner's report finding the applicant made false statements and mishandled personal information at a town hall meeting.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the factual findings were reasonable.

The court also dismissed the applicant's Charter claims, noting they were not raised before the decision-maker and that the limits on her expression were justified by the need to protect public trust and staff dignity.

The appellant passed away after perfecting an appeal of a final order arising from a binding judicial dispute resolution hearing.

Due to the appellant's death, the proceeding was automatically stayed.

Appellant's counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record as he could not obtain instructions from an authorized estate representative.

The Divisional Court adjourned the appeal, ordered the proceeding to continue against the appellant's estate pursuant to rule 10.02, required the respondent to provide a status update within 90 days, and granted counsel's motion to be removed from the record.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a College committee's decision requiring him to complete a remedial program and attend for a caution.

The discipline stemmed from the physician making a mandatory fitness-to-drive report to the Ministry of Transportation following an argument with a patient, and subsequently disclosing the patient's personal health information to her father.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the statutory immunity for reporting under the Highway Traffic Act does not oust the College's regulatory jurisdiction.

The Court further held that the Board's conclusions regarding the unsupportable nature of the report and the breach of patient confidentiality were reasonable.

The defendants moved under Rule 56.01 for an order requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs on the grounds that the plaintiff is not ordinarily resident in Ontario and has insufficient assets within the jurisdiction to satisfy a potential adverse costs award.

The defendants argued the plaintiff's claim is plainly without merit.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the defendants' conduct forced him to leave Ontario, that he has personal property in the jurisdiction, and that the defendants improperly delayed in bringing the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a holistic consideration of all circumstances rendered an order for security unjust, particularly given the substantial delay in bringing the motion, the defendants' failure to offer reasonable explanation for the delay, the plaintiff's particularized evidence regarding the merits of the claim, and evidence that the defendants' conduct contributed to the plaintiff's departure from Ontario.

The plaintiff Beechhill Capital Corp. brought a motion for summary judgment on a promissory note in the amount of $1,372,230.00 issued by the defendants.

The defendants acknowledged the debt but raised defences including lack of consideration, statute of limitations, oppression claims, and misrepresentation regarding the value of pledged HEXO shares.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, finding that the defences lacked merit.

The court determined that valuable consideration existed through antecedent debt and forbearance, the limitation period had not expired as the note was renewed, oppression was not a valid defence to a promissory note, and the alleged misrepresentations could not have induced the defendants to sign the note since the debt predated the note and the defendants had knowledge of the share dispositions.