Marshall A. Swadron

The court considered a motion for summary judgment in a civil action arising from a criminal prosecution for fraud against Anthony Falasca.

The plaintiffs alleged malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, misfeasance, failure to withdraw the charge, and abuse of process.

The court found that the claims relating to the criminal prosecution, including abuse of process, were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the action was commenced after the expiry of the limitation period.

The court declined to consider the separate abuse of process claim relating to a bankruptcy proceeding, as it was not properly before the court on this motion.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of discoverability and the application of limitation periods in prosecutorial torts.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) applied for guardianship of the property of Rodney Beals, a 55-year-old man with schizophrenia and developmental delay, after $2 million in lottery winnings were dissipated by family members acting as his attorneys for property.

The court found that Rodney was incapable of managing his property at the time of the lottery win, that his family members owed and breached fiduciary duties, and that the PGT should be appointed as guardian of property.

The court ordered the termination of existing powers of attorney, the appointment of the PGT, and costs against the family members.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss or stay the plaintiff's action, alleging it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and that the plaintiff's counsel was in an incurable conflict of interest.

The court found the action to be an abuse of process due to significant overlap with other proceedings and the plaintiff's counsel's prior representation of one of the defendants as estate trustee, which provided access to privileged information.

The court concluded that this conflict created incurable prejudice.

The action was permanently stayed, and the plaintiff's counsel was removed from the record and prohibited from acting in any proceeding related to the estate where the defendant is a party.

Costs were awarded to the moving parties.

The appellants brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a judgment and for leave to add Jasmine Javid as a party to the appeal.

The responding party opposed the extension and sought security for costs.

The court dismissed the motion for an extension of time, finding that the appellants failed to demonstrate a continuing intention to appeal, provide a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay, or show compelling merits for the proposed appeal.

The court also found that granting the extension would prejudice the responding party due to a pattern of delay and obfuscation.

As a result, the other requested relief fell away.

The moving parties, a former lawyer and his professional corporation, sought an urgent order to pay the net proceeds of a condominium sale into court, pending their motion to extend time for an appeal from an underlying judgment.

The judgment had declared a trust invalid and ordered the discharge of a mortgage and return of assets to an estate, which the moving parties had failed to comply with, leading to a contempt finding.

The moving parties argued the payment was necessary to protect a beneficiary's interests and alleged estate mismanagement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the allegations of mismanagement incredible and the payment into court unnecessary.

The court noted the moving parties' history of obstruction, non-compliance with court orders, and unlikelihood of the appeal proceeding due to unpaid costs.

The applicant, Estate Trustee of Aghdas Javid's Estate, brought a motion for civil contempt against the respondents, Richard Keith Watson and his professional corporation, for non-compliance with a prior judgment.

The prior judgment had invalidated a trust created by Mr. Watson, ordered the discharge of a mortgage, conveyance of a condominium, remittance of trust funds, and compliance with disclosure undertakings.

The court found the respondents in contempt for failing to provide required documents and answer undertakings, but not for the mortgage discharge or conveyance, or remitting trust funds (pending updated statements).

A penalty hearing is to follow.

The plaintiff, a nightclub operator, brought an action against the City of Toronto and a city councillor for misfeasance in public office, abuse of public office, unlawful interference with economic relations, and conspiracy to defame and injure.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants conspired with the Toronto Police Service to target the nightclub with searches and inspections to force its closure.

The court dismissed the action, finding no evidence of a conspiracy, bad faith, or unlawful conduct by the defendants.

The court held that the city councillor's statements were protected by qualified privilege and statutory immunity, and that the City was not liable for the actions of the police.

The respondents brought a motion to remove the applicant's counsel, alleging a conflict of interest because counsel acted for the applicant personally, as Estate Trustee, and for the Estate, and arguing counsel might become witnesses.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that counsel acts for the Estate Trustee, not the Estate, and there was no evidence of a conflict or that counsel would need to testify.

The court also ordered the respondents to provide outstanding disclosure, pay $15,000 in costs thrown away for a previously adjourned hearing, and directed that any proceeds from the sale of a disputed condominium be paid into court.

An individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in respect of sexual offences, and subsequently granted an absolute discharge by the provincial review board, challenged the provincial sex offender registry regime on equality grounds.

The majority held that the regime drew discriminatory distinctions on the basis of mental disability by denying those found not criminally responsible any opportunity for exemption or removal from the registry, in contrast to mechanisms available to those found guilty, and that the infringement was not justified under section 1.

The Court affirmed a tailored declaration of invalidity limited to those found not criminally responsible who had received an absolute discharge, suspended for twelve months, with the respondent granted an individual exemption from the suspension.

The concurring reasons of Rowe J. would have reaffirmed the Schachter framework for suspended declarations as grounded in rule-of-law considerations rather than adopting the majority's principled-discretion approach.

The partial dissent of Côté and Brown JJ. agreed on the section 15(1) breach and the suspension but would have grounded the suspension solely in the rule of law and declined to grant an individual exemption, which in their view exceeded the institutional competence of the Court and raised horizontal unfairness concerns.

The applicant brought a motion to stay an individual exemption granted by the Ontario Court of Appeal, which had exempted the respondent from a 12-month suspension of a declaration of invalidity striking down sex offender registry provisions as unconstitutional in their application to persons found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder and granted an absolute discharge.

The applicant sought the stay pending disposition of a leave to appeal application.

The single judge found no special circumstances warranting re-examination of the Court of Appeal's prior refusal to grant the same stay.

The applicant also failed to establish a tenable case for irreparable harm, as the respondent's exemplary 17-year track record provided cogent evidence of minimal risk of reoffending, and there was no apparent reason to deprive the respondent of his s. 15(1) Charter right in the interim.

Motion dismissed without costs.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for sexual assault charges in 2002 and received an absolute discharge from the Ontario Review Board in 2003.

He challenged the constitutionality of Christopher's Law (Sex Offender Registry) and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA), which imposed mandatory lifetime sex offender registration and reporting requirements on him with no possibility of exemption.

The Court of Appeal found that while the legislation did not violate section 7 of the Charter (fundamental justice), it violated section 15(1) (equality rights) by discriminating against persons found NCRMD who received absolute discharges.

The court declared the provisions of no force or effect as applied to such persons, suspended the declaration for 12 months, but exempted the appellant from the suspension, ordering his removal from the registries.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the proceeding, arguing that Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction simpliciter or, alternatively, that Ontario was forum non conveniens.

The action was commenced by the plaintiffs for misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty related to a life insurance policy.

The court found that a presumptive connecting factor existed in Ontario because the deceased, Anna Neger, resided in Toronto until her death and likely received and acted upon the alleged misrepresentations in Ontario.

The defendants failed to rebut this presumption.

Furthermore, the court determined that Ontario was a convenient forum, considering factors such as the location of parties and witnesses, the applicable law, and the avoidance of a multiplicity of proceedings, despite the defendants' arguments regarding a defendant's immigration status and New York governing law for the trust agreement.

The motion to stay the proceeding was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.