Lata Menon

Following findings of guilt on multiple counts arising from prolonged sexual abuse of a child by a step-parent, the court proceeded to sentence an absconded accused in absentia after finding he had abandoned his right to be present.

Applying the rule against multiple convictions, the court stayed the sexual assault counts and entered convictions on the sexual interference counts only.

Giving primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence under the Criminal Code and relying on the guidance in Friesen, the court imposed a six-year penitentiary sentence.

The court also made mandatory and discretionary ancillary orders, including DNA, sex offender registration, child-related prohibition, non-communication, and weapons prohibition orders.

The accused, M.U., was charged with seven counts of sexual assault and seven counts of sexual interference against his step-daughter, P.N., who was under 16 years of age at the time of the alleged offences (April 2013 - February 2017).

The trial was judge-alone.

The Crown's case relied on the complainant's testimony, which the court found intelligent, credible, and reliable despite minor inconsistencies.

The accused denied all allegations, but his testimony was deemed wholly incredible and rejected.

The court applied the principles from R. v. W.(D.) and found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all 14 counts.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action under Rule 21.01(3)(b) and (c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was duplicative of an existing proceeding (CV-22-544) regarding the same private mortgage agreement.

The court found that the factual issues in this action went to the heart of interpreting the private mortgage contract, creating a clear risk of abuse of process through inconsistent findings.

The court dismissed the action as entirely duplicative and awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants, noting the plaintiff could seek to be added as a third party in the parallel proceeding.

The plaintiff, Ghulam Mujtaba, claimed the defendants, Mohammad Yasin and Fehra Yasin, borrowed $50,733.47 from him in 2011, which they promised to repay upon selling their home.

The defendants argued the funds were not a loan but payments towards amounts Mujtaba owed them under a separate agreement for housing and supervising his sister-in-law, Nazma, who was on bail.

The court found that Mujtaba proved the funds were a loan, separate from the agreement for Nazma's care, and that the defendants' evidence regarding their contribution to the funds and their set-off defence was not credible or properly pleaded.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the full amount plus pre-judgment interest.

A custody and access trial involving a child who had been alienated from his father by his mother's manipulative conduct.

The applicant sought custody and reintegration therapy after years of failed access attempts.

The court found clear evidence of parental alienation and made a temporary order for a change in residence to facilitate intensive reintegration therapy through Families Moving Forward.

Following successful therapy and evidence of the child's adjustment to his father's care, the court granted sole custody to the applicant with access to the respondent at the applicant's discretion.

The court awarded costs to the applicant for the reintegration therapy expenses.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' Affidavit of Documents or, alternatively, their Statement of Defence, alleging that the defendants fabricated emails central to their defence.

The court found that the defendants deliberately included fabricated documents in their Affidavit of Documents, constituting an abuse of the court's process and an affront to the integrity of justice.

The court granted the motion, striking the defendants' Statement of Defence and ordering them to pay the plaintiff's costs.

The plaintiff, 2042066 Ontario Inc. O/A MSGD Petroleum, brought a motion for summary judgment against Basant Transport Ltd. and Ranjit Singh Ghuman for an unpaid debt of $32,500 for petroleum.

The central issue was whether Mr. Ghuman had personally guaranteed the debt.

The court, applying the principles from Hryniak v. Maudlin, found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

It weighed the contradictory evidence of Mr. Ghuman, the testimony of Mr. Dhillon, and an expert forensic document examiner's report, concluding that Mr. Ghuman had indeed signed the personal guarantee.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for $30,500 plus interest and fixed costs.

The applicant father sought to vary a final consent order that provided for shared custody of the parties' three children, seeking sole custody, child support, and s. 7 expenses.

The court found a material change in circumstances as the shared parenting arrangement had become unworkable and the children consistently expressed a desire to live with the father.

The court awarded sole custody to the father with a specified access schedule for the mother.

The father was granted leave to amend his pleadings at trial.

The court ordered the mother to pay ongoing child support and partial retroactive child support, but denied the father's claim for retroactive s. 7 expenses due to lack of notice and his tactical use of an expert report.

The plaintiff sought to enforce a third mortgage against the defendant's property, claiming it secured loans previously made to the defendant's spouse.

The defendant argued she never consented to securing her spouse's debts and believed the mortgage was intended to replace an existing second mortgage.

The court found the mortgage was intended to replace the second mortgage and that no funds were advanced to the defendant.

The court also applied the defence of non est factum, finding the defendant did not consent to the mortgage's purported purpose.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed, and the mortgage was ordered discharged.

The defendant's counterclaim for slander of title was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry, colour, creed, ethnic origin, place of origin, and race after being unsuccessful in two job competitions.

After hearing the applicant's case and the respondent's key witness, the Tribunal requested submissions on whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence to support the applicant's allegations of racial bias, noting that the successful candidate was clearly superior and the applicant's own references did not recommend her for the position.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging employment discrimination requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because her recently retained counsel was unavailable.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the late retention of counsel did not constitute exceptional circumstances under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The Tribunal also provided directions regarding the scope of proposed witness evidence, noting potential hearsay and relevance issues to be addressed at the hearing.