Kofi Barnes

Following findings of civil contempt for repeated breaches of court orders arising from a commercial lease dispute, the court determined the appropriate sanction.

The applicant had wilfully breached multiple orders governing access to premises, removal of goods, and payment of heating costs.

Applying Rule 60.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles governing contempt sanctions, the court emphasized deterrence and denunciation where there is a pattern of disregard for court authority.

Given the applicant’s persistent non‑compliance, lack of remorse, and likelihood of continued breaches, the court struck the applicant’s application for relief from forfeiture and awarded substantial indemnity costs.

Additional monetary sanctions were ordered pursuant to a prior consent order.

The plaintiffs sought damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from development credits issued by a municipality after road construction on land previously owned by the plaintiffs.

The land was sold multiple times, and the ultimate purchaser obtained a building permit and received the development credits.

The court applied the Supreme Court of Canada’s three‑part test for unjust enrichment and found that although the defendant received a benefit and the plaintiffs suffered a corresponding deprivation, recovery should be denied.

The court concluded that the reasonable expectations of the parties defeated the claim because the defendant paid a premium for the land reflecting the credits and had no knowledge that the credits were intended for the plaintiffs.

The defendants moved to dismiss an action for unpaid electrical services on the basis that the named plaintiff lacked legal capacity because the corporation identified in the claim did not legally exist.

The court considered whether the misidentification constituted a misnomer under the Limitations Act, 2002 and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Applying the test for misnomer, the court held that the defendants clearly understood who the contracting party was and that the action concerned invoices issued under the trade name used by the corporation.

The court permitted amendment of the plaintiff’s name to the correct corporate entity notwithstanding the expired limitation period and found any prejudice could be addressed by costs.

The court also ordered the action transferred from Brampton to Toronto and set a litigation timetable.

The applicant mother sought an order requiring the respondent father to pay his proportionate share of child care expenses for services provided by the maternal grandmother.

The father opposed paying for care provided by a family member and sought increased access.

The court applied the principles from McLaughlin, finding that because the grandmother had foregone employment to care for the children and her dominant activity during the mother's working hours was child care, she was entitled to remuneration.

The father was ordered to pay his proportionate share of the grandmother's discounted weekly rate.

The father's request for increased access was dismissed as a recent order already provided alternate weekend overnight access.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside an order validating service of a divorce application outside Canada and the resulting final divorce order.

The court considered whether the orders could be set aside under rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules on the basis of fraud, mistake, or absence of notice.

The court found that the applicant failed to disclose material facts when seeking validation of service, including knowledge of the respondent’s residential address in Ontario and information regarding her expected return to Canada.

This material non‑disclosure occurred in the context of a motion brought without notice and constituted fraud on the court process.

As a result, the order validating service and the final divorce order were both set aside.

The plaintiff challenged her insurer’s determination that she was 50 percent at fault for a motor vehicle collision that occurred while both drivers were reversing.

The insurer relied on rule 19(a) of the Fault Determination Rules, which assigns full fault to a reversing driver who strikes another vehicle.

The court held that rule 19(a) did not apply because both vehicles were reversing and the circumstances were not fully captured by any rule in the Fault Determination Rules.

Applying the ordinary rules of negligence under the Highway Traffic Act and common law, the court found that both drivers failed to maintain a proper lookout while reversing.

Fault was therefore properly apportioned equally between them and the insurer was responsible for only 50 percent of the repair costs.

A landlord brought a motion seeking a finding of civil contempt against a tenant corporation and its principal for alleged breaches of multiple court orders arising from a commercial lease dispute.

The court considered whether the orders were clear and unequivocal, whether the respondents deliberately and wilfully disobeyed them, and whether contempt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found several deliberate breaches, including denying the landlord access to the premises, entering the premises contrary to a court order, removing non‑perishable items when only perishables were permitted, failing to remove perishable goods as ordered, and failing to pay heating costs required by a consent order.

The court declined to find contempt in certain instances where the evidence created reasonable doubt about deliberate breach.

The respondents were found in contempt of multiple orders and the issue of penalty and costs was adjourned.

A tenant applied for repayment of $7,500 characterized as a security deposit and sought reimbursement of prepaid rent totaling $90,000 for a one‑year residential lease.

The court considered whether the Residential Tenancies Act prohibits demanding or accepting prepaid rent and whether a tenant may voluntarily prepay rent.

The court held that while ss.105 and 106 of the Act prohibit landlords from demanding prepaid rent or unlawful security deposits, they do not prohibit a tenant from voluntarily offering prepaid rent nor prevent a landlord from accepting it.

Based on the evidence, including communications between the parties’ real estate agents, the court found the tenant voluntarily offered to prepay the annual rent.

However, the $7,500 security deposit for damages contravened the Act and had to be returned.

The mother brought a motion for sole custody of the parties' three-year-old child, while the father sought joint custody.

The court found that both parties were good parents but were unable to communicate or make joint decisions.

To ensure both parents remained fully involved in the child's life, the court ordered joint custody with a parallel parenting arrangement, granting the father primary responsibility for educational decisions and the mother primary responsibility for all other decisions.

The child's primary residence was ordered to remain with the mother, and an access schedule was established for the father.

Sentencing following a jury conviction for importing heroin into Canada and possessing heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The offences involved approximately 398 grams of heroin imported through a parcel shipment and an additional quantity of heroin located at the offender’s residence.

The court considered aggravating factors including the quantity and purity of the drug, the offender’s role as an organizer rather than a courier, and the sophistication of the importation scheme.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s lack of criminal record, family circumstances, and employment history.

Applying the proportionality principle, the court imposed consecutive sentences totalling twelve years’ imprisonment with credit for pre-trial custody, along with DNA and weapons prohibition orders.

The appellant appealed a stop work order and revocation of a building permit issued by a municipal chief building official under s. 25 of the Building Code Act relating to the construction of a duplex in Brampton.

The municipality determined that the project contravened the applicable zoning by-law and revoked the permit.

The court held that the municipality correctly identified the applicable by-law and that the permit was issued in error.

However, the revocation and cancellation of the legal non‑conforming use designation were found to be unfair and unreasonable in the circumstances, particularly given the appellant’s reliance on the municipality’s prior representations and the substantial expenditures already incurred.

The court stayed the revocation of the permit to allow the appellant an opportunity to remedy the by-law violations and held that damages could not be awarded on a statutory appeal under the Act.

The applicant, an absentee landlord living in Qatar, sought to reverse clean-up costs assessed against his property by the respondent municipality after a clandestine drug lab operated by his tenants caused a fire.

The municipality relied on a by-law prohibiting the use of property for the manufacture of controlled substances.

The court held that the by-law is a strict liability public welfare provision that does not require the owner to have actual knowledge of the prohibited activity.

The court found the municipality's decision to assess costs against the applicant was reasonable and that failing to do so would result in the applicant's unjust enrichment.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, brought an action against the Crown and Canada Revenue Agency employees, arguing that as a 'human being' rather than a 'person', the Income Tax Act did not apply to her.

She sought the return of ten years of taxes and damages, and asserted the defendants should be noted in default.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the Statement of Claim.

The court found the defendants were not in default, as the plaintiff failed to comply with the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act requirements for default judgments against the Crown.

The court granted the defendants' motion to strike the claim without leave to amend, finding the plaintiff's pseudolegal arguments had been consistently rejected by Canadian courts and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court addressed disputes arising from a prior separation agreement and order concerning child support and post‑secondary expenses for adult children of the marriage.

The court determined that one child became a non‑dependent child upon joining the military and was no longer entitled to child support.

For the remaining adult child attending post‑secondary education, the court established conditions governing entitlement to table child support and required detailed disclosure of educational status, residence, and financial resources.

The court also varied the prior order to require the adult child to contribute one‑quarter of her post‑secondary education costs once the RESP funds were depleted, with the parents contributing the remaining costs proportionally to income.

Determination of arrears and certain support issues was adjourned pending production of financial and residency information.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment granting the plaintiff possession of mortgaged property.

The court applied the test from Bayview Financial, L.P. v. Spartan Collision Corporation, requiring promptness in bringing the motion, a plausible explanation for the default, and an arguable defence on the merits.

Although the defendants provided a plausible explanation for the delay and moved relatively promptly after learning of the judgment, they failed to demonstrate a genuine or arguable defence to the mortgage default claim.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was therefore dismissed.

However, the court temporarily restrained enforcement of the judgment for 20 days to allow the defendants time to finalize financing to satisfy the debt and made no order as to costs.

Shareholders and a former director brought a motion seeking to strike the defendants’ statement of defence for alleged non-disclosure, or alternatively compelling additional corporate and financial production.

The underlying action alleged that the defendants, as directors, diverted a corporate opportunity to another entity and caused the insolvency of the corporation.

The court reviewed the history of disclosure and determined that extensive corporate, technical, contractual, and financial records had already been produced.

The requested additional production was found to be overly broad and unsupported by evidence establishing relevance to issues in dispute.

The motion for additional disclosure was dismissed and the matter was directed to proceed to an expedited trial.