COVID-19

The applicant sought an order of mandamus compelling a justice of the peace to proceed with the respondent's trial for a speeding infraction.

The justice of the peace had previously ruled that the court lost jurisdiction over the respondent because administrative adjournments during the COVID-19 pandemic were not properly recorded on the offence notice.

The Superior Court found that the justice of the peace erred, as the respondent had attorned to the court's jurisdiction by appearing via a representative, and the administrative adjournments complied with COVID-19 directives.

The application for mandamus was granted.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking an order directing the applicant mother to ensure their 12-year-old daughter is vaccinated against COVID-19, as well as police enforcement of a 2017 parenting order and a finding of contempt.

The mother opposed forcing the child to be vaccinated against her will.

The court dismissed the contempt motion due to improper service.

On the vaccination issue, the court declined to take judicial notice of government information regarding the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine.

The court found the child to be a mature minor capable of making her own medical decisions and strongly opposed to the vaccine.

The motion was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicants brought a joint application to validate their religious marriage ceremony, which took place without a valid marriage licence due to COVID-19 closures and restrictions.

The court applied the four-part test under section 31 of the Marriage Act.

Finding that the marriage was solemnized in good faith, intended to comply with the Act, neither party was disqualified, and the parties cohabited as a married couple, the court deemed the marriage valid.

The accused was convicted of second degree murder for shooting his girlfriend three times, including while she was on the phone with a 911 operator.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 17 to 20 years, while the defence sought 10 to 12 years.

The court found the domestic nature of the homicide, the abuse of trust, the use of a firearm, and the callousness of the killing to be significant aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included the accused's expressions of regret and the harsh conditions of his pre-trial custody during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment with a parole ineligibility period of 14 years.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for delay under Rules 48.14 and 24.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion to extend the deadline to set the action down for trial.

The court found that the plaintiffs had an acceptable explanation for the delay, which included the time required to comply with undertakings, retain experts, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also found that the defendants failed to establish non-compensable prejudice.

The defendants' motion was dismissed, and the plaintiffs' cross-motion was granted, establishing a timetable for mandatory mediation and setting the action down for trial.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal damages after being terminated by the defendant due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court applied the Bardal factors, noting the plaintiff's 9.8 years of service, age of 39, and specialized training, to award an 11-month notice period.

The court included pension contributions and a 10% benefits value in the award, but declined to reimburse post-termination training expenses.

The court also found that a 25% salary reduction prior to termination constituted constructive dismissal, meaning the plaintiff's subsequent resignation did not reduce her entitlement.

Two school boards applied for a declaration that the force majeure clauses in their commercial leases with the respondent landlord applied to abate rent during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown from March 17, 2020, to August 11, 2020.

The landlord argued the clauses excused it from providing the premises but did not excuse the tenants from paying rent.

The court applied principles of contract interpretation and found that the pandemic-induced government lockdown was a triggering event that prevented the landlord from providing the leased space.

Under the specific wording of the leases, this excused the landlord's performance and abated the tenants' rent obligations for the lockdown period.

The application was granted.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate defendant for defaulting on a commercial loan and against the personal defendants on their guarantees.

The defendants argued they did not understand the loan documents and that the Covid-19 pandemic frustrated the contract.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no evidence to support the defence of non est factum and holding that the pandemic did not alter the fundamental nature of the lending agreement, especially since the business was already failing prior to the pandemic.

The accused, on trial for second-degree murder and attempted murder during the COVID-19 pandemic, brought a motion requesting that civilian witnesses testify without masks so their demeanour could be assessed.

The trial judge applied the framework from R. v. S. (N.) to balance the accused's fair trial rights against the public health interest in limiting virus transmission.

The court held that requiring witnesses to remain masked did not create a serious risk to trial fairness, as demeanour is not determinative of credibility.

The court further noted that testimony by videoconference was a reasonable alternative that accommodated both interests.

The motion was dismissed, and witnesses were directed to remain masked.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for judgment arising from the defendants' breach of a settlement agreement.

The defendants failed to pay the final installment, sign a consent to judgment, and sign a consent to a dismissal order, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to unilaterally alter the terms.

The court found no valid reason for non-compliance, rejected the pandemic excuse, and granted judgment for the plaintiffs in the amount of $90,000 (the $120,000 default amount less $30,000 paid), plus substantial indemnity costs.

The applicant sought a bail review of a detention order on charges including drug trafficking, firearms offences, and participating in a criminal organization.

He argued that fewer charges, a new proposed surety, medical conditions, the COVID-19 pandemic, and trial delays constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the Palmer criteria and found no material change in circumstances, nor was the original decision clearly inappropriate.

The application for bail review was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with multiple counts of robbery alongside a co-accused, applied for severance on the basis that a joint trial would infringe his right to be tried within a reasonable time.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, jury trials were suspended, causing significant delay.

The applicant was willing to re-elect for a judge-alone trial, while the co-accused was not.

The court granted the severance application, finding that while most factors favoured a joint trial, the potential injustice caused by the delay and mutually inconsistent elections warranted severance.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the jury notice in a motor vehicle accident action, arguing that delays in jury trials caused by the COVID-19 pandemic would prejudice the plaintiff's loss of income claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to discharge their onus to show that justice would be better served by discharging the jury.

The court noted that the delay was partly due to the parties' own pre-trial timelines and that jury trials might resume in the near future.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's jury notice due to significant trial delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiff argued that waiting for a jury trial would cause substantial financial prejudice, as his future income loss would convert to past income loss subject to statutory deductions.

The court found that the practical reality in the Central East Region meant a jury trial would be delayed until at least late 2022, whereas a judge-alone trial could proceed much sooner.

The motion was granted and the jury notice was struck to ensure the timely delivery of justice.

The applicant subtenant sought leave under the Solicitors Act to assess a legal account rendered by the respondent law firm to the landlord.

The applicant had agreed to pay the landlord's legal fees as part of a settlement to transfer the lease after defaulting on rent during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the application, finding no special circumstances to justify an assessment, as the account was not exorbitant and the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement that required full payment of the legal fees.

The accused pled guilty to perjury for lying under oath during the preliminary inquiry of her boyfriend, who was charged with murder.

The Crown and defence agreed on a sentence range of 18 to 24 months but disagreed on whether it should be served in custody or the community.

The court considered the serious nature of perjury in homicide cases, the accused's youth, lack of prior record, guilty plea, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on custodial sentences.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, finding it would adequately address denunciation and deterrence while facilitating rehabilitation.

The applicant sought a review of his bail detention order under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

He argued the detaining justice erred in law due to technical difficulties during the hearing and by relying on his COVID-19 diagnosis, and alternatively that his subsequent negative test and new release plan constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding no error in law as the applicant was detained on secondary grounds due to numerous serious breaches of court orders and a lengthy criminal record.

The court also found the proposed release plan lacked adequate supervision and did not constitute a material change in circumstances.

The plaintiffs in a personal injury action moved to strike the defendants' jury notice due to the suspension of civil jury trials in London caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The action was scheduled for a four-week trial in May 2021.

The court balanced the defendants' substantive right to a jury trial against the prejudice of indefinite delay and the broader interests of the administration of justice.

The court ordered a conditional remedy: the jury notice is struck if the matter is called for a judge-alone trial in May 2021, but remains in place if the trial is not called due to a lack of judicial resources, with leave for the plaintiffs to renew the motion closer to the rescheduled date.

The offender was found guilty of possessing a loaded 9mm handgun with an over-capacity magazine in his car, while bound by two weapons prohibitions and trafficking drugs.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to conditionally stay the s. 92(1) charge.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for gun crimes associated with drug trafficking, the court imposed a total sentence of 4 years (minus 10 days) for the firearm and breach offences, consecutive to a prior sentence for the drug offences.

The offender received statutory credit for pre-sentence custody plus 150 days of enhanced credit for harsh conditions due to lockdowns and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant, charged with second degree murder following a home-invasion robbery, applied for bail under s. 522 of the Criminal Code based on a material change in circumstances since her initial detention order.

The court found that the COVID-19 pandemic and the availability of a new, highly reliable surety constituted material changes.

The court concluded that the applicant met her onus on the secondary and tertiary grounds, noting the stringent release plan involving house arrest, electronic monitoring, and substantial sureties.

The applicant was granted judicial interim release.