Dhiren R. Chohan

The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of the Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, 2021, arguing it was ultra vires Ontario and infringed their rights to free expression and equality under the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Act, finding its dominant purpose was to affirm and commemorate the Tamil-Ontarian community's experience, which falls within Ontario's power over local matters under s. 92(16) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court also dismissed the Charter claims, concluding the Act does not suppress expression or draw a discriminatory distinction against Sinhala-Buddhists.

In a family law trial concerning parenting and relocation, the court determined the child's best interests under s. 16 of the Divorce Act and the relocation provisions in ss. 16.9, 16.92 and 16.93.

The court found that, although both parents loved the child, the mother's alcohol use, instability, threatening communications, and repeated exposure of the child to traumatic conflict created meaningful risks to the child's emotional and psychological well-being.

The father's plan in Hornepayne was found to offer greater stability, family support, and cultural connection, despite concerns about his communication and mental health management.

The child's primary residence was therefore ordered to be with the father in Hornepayne, with extensive parenting time to the mother, while child and spousal support were deferred.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action regarding the ownership of a rural property, the court determined the costs payable to the successful defendants.

The defendants had made an offer to settle that was more favourable than the trial outcome, entitling them to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

Applying the factors under Rule 57 and the principle of proportionality, the court awarded the defendants costs fixed at $35,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for delay.

The action arose from a motor vehicle accident that occurred nearly 18 years prior.

The court found that while the delay was inordinate, it was not inexcusable, as the defendants had consented to or requested many of the adjournments, and the plaintiff had been actively participating in the litigation process.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the court set a timetable to bring the matter to trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against her brother, his wife, and their two corporations for the repayment of a loan funded through her personal line of credit.

The defendants argued there were genuine issues for trial regarding the terms of the loan and whether the personal defendants were liable.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the documentary evidence established the loan was for the benefit of all defendants, had a one-year term, and was acknowledged by the defendants.

Summary judgment was granted against all defendants in the amount of $155,322.82.

The plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the defendant for breach of confidence, intentional infliction of mental distress, and invasion of privacy after the defendant posted an intimate video of the plaintiff online.

The defendant successfully moved to set aside the default judgment.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal the order setting aside the default judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's application of the test to set aside a default judgment, and concluding that a trial on the merits would be of general importance to the development of the law.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment awarding the plaintiff $100,000 in damages for the non-consensual posting of an intimate video.

Applying the five-factor test from Mountain View Farms, the court found that the interests of justice favoured setting aside the liability and damages portions of the judgment, as the defendant had an arguable defence regarding the quantum of damages and had moved relatively promptly.

The motion was granted on the condition that the defendant pay $10,000 in costs thrown away, while the permanent injunctions remained in place.

The plaintiff corporation brought a motion for leave to be represented by its sole shareholder, while the defendant brought a motion for security for costs in a construction lien action.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, noting the trend of allowing sole proprietorship-like corporations to be self-represented.

The court also granted the defendant's motion for security for costs, finding good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario, and ordered the plaintiff to post $20,000.