M.E. Vallee

The offender, a drug dealer, was convicted of assault and assault with a weapon against two female drug addicts, one of whom was his intimate partner.

The Crown sought a two-year sentence, while the defence sought a sentence of time served and probation.

The court denied pre-trial custody credit for time the offender spent serving an unrelated federal sentence.

However, the court granted 247 days of credit for the exceptionally stringent bail conditions (house arrest) the offender endured.

The offender was sentenced to 17 months' incarceration, reduced by the 247-day credit to 270 days to serve, followed by three years of probation.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce personal guarantees executed by the individual defendants for the corporate defendant's debt of over $2.3 million.

The corporate defendant was in receivership.

The individual defendants raised numerous defenses, including an alleged oral agreement to waive the guarantees, breach of a subordination agreement, and a counterclaim for unpaid rebates and damages for forcing the company into receivership.

The court rejected all defenses, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, and granted summary judgment while dismissing the counterclaim.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation against the offender for historical sexual offences committed against his children.

The court reviewed psychiatric evidence indicating the offender had pedohebephilia and a moderate risk of sexual recidivism, but found he did not meet the criteria for a dangerous offender as his conduct was not intractable and the risk would decline with age.

The court instead designated him a long-term offender, imposing a sentence of 7.5 years imprisonment (with credit for pre-trial custody leaving 6 months and 1 day to serve) followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The plaintiff failed to set a construction lien action down for trial within the statutory two-year period, resulting in the lien being dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the underlying contract action due to delay.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant had not suffered specific prejudice and emphasizing the principle that disputes should be resolved on their merits.

The action was permitted to proceed as a contract claim.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding her termination.

After her position became redundant, the parties agreed to ten weeks of working notice.

The employer breached this agreement after five weeks, alleging job abandonment, and the trial judge awarded the appellant the remaining five weeks' pay.

On appeal, the appellant argued the agreement lacked consideration and its breach constituted rescission entitling her to common law notice.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the agreement valid and the breach a repudiation rather than rescission, as the appellant had already received half the benefit of the contract.

The applicant step-mother brought a motion for the interim primary care and return of her five-year-old step-daughter from Newfoundland to Ontario.

The respondent father had moved to Newfoundland with the child following the parties' separation.

The court found that the status quo of the parties living together and co-parenting could not be restored.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court determined that the child's needs were being met in Newfoundland and dismissed the applicant's motion, allowing the child to remain with the respondent father.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $32,657.80 on the basis that the defendant made an unproven fraud allegation.

The defendant argued that it had offered to withdraw the allegation and that the legal issue was novel, militating against a costs award.

The court found that the fraud allegation was not formally withdrawn as the defendant's offer was conditional, but noted the plaintiff's claimed amount was effectively based on a partial indemnity rate.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $29,000 all-inclusive.

The accused applied for judicial interim release after being charged with firearms and drug offences while already on bail for similar charges.

The accused proposed a new release plan involving house arrest, a GPS ankle bracelet, and his girlfriend as a surety.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the accused had previously breached his bail conditions flagrantly and had shown a lack of respect for the proposed surety by taking her car without her knowledge.

The court concluded that GPS monitoring is reactionary and insufficient to prevent further offences, justifying detention on the secondary ground.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interim order for recovery and possession of two dogs following the breakdown of his relationship with the defendant.

The defendant conceded the plaintiff owned one dog but claimed the other was a gift to her.

The court rejected the defendant's jurisdictional argument that the matter belonged in Family Court.

Applying the test for interim recovery of personal property, the court found the plaintiff did not demonstrate substantial grounds for the recovery of the disputed dog due to conflicting evidence, including a veterinary bill paid by the defendant.

The court granted the interim order for the conceded dog but dismissed it for the disputed dog.

The defendants successfully defended motions for summary judgment brought by the plaintiffs and a co-defendant concerning an aborted real estate transaction.

In determining costs, the court criticized the defendants' disorganized, inefficient, and unnecessarily lengthy approach to the motions, which included filing duplicative materials and excessive authorities.

The defendants sought over $108,000 on a full indemnity basis, which the court found astonishing and unsupported by dockets or settlement offers.

Applying principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality, the court fixed the defendants' costs at $20,000 all-inclusive, payable $14,000 by the plaintiffs and $6,000 by the co-defendant.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion to strike the respondent's pleadings or for disclosure.

The court found the respondent's failure to produce basic financial disclosure over four years, despite multiple court orders, constituted bad faith and egregious non-compliance.

Applying section 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant full recovery costs in the amount of $43,000, payable immediately.

The plaintiffs (sellers) and defendants by counterclaim (real estate agents) brought motions for summary judgment regarding an aborted real estate transaction.

The buyers had refused to close after discovering the lot depth was 23% smaller than advertised, claiming they intended to demolish the house and build a larger one.

The sellers argued this intention was fabricated and the mistake did not go to the root of the contract.

The court dismissed the motions for summary judgment, finding that assessing the credibility of the buyer's stated intention required a trial.

The applicant wife brought a motion to strike the respondent husband's pleadings for failure to produce financial disclosure, or alternatively, for an order for production with a daily penalty.

The court found that the husband had repeatedly failed to comply with five previous disclosure orders.

The court ordered the husband to provide the outstanding disclosure by a specified date, failing which he would be subject to a $500 daily fine payable to the wife.

Following a trial where both the plaintiffs' construction claim and the defendants' counterclaims were dismissed, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs had claimed $100,000 for deficiencies and breach of contract, while the defendants counterclaimed for mental distress and injurious falsehood.

Despite divided success, the court found the plaintiffs should not have pursued their claim and that the defendants were entitled to costs for defending the main action.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded the defendants $70,000 in all-inclusive costs.

Following a five-day trial on a motion to change where the applicant successfully terminated spousal support, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The respondent, who was self-represented, advanced untenable claims for retroactive and indefinite support before abandoning them on the final day of trial.

The court found the respondent's litigation conduct unreasonable and awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $32,257.39, representing 70 percent of full recovery.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to recognize and enforce a default judgment obtained in Maryland against the defendants for $107,797.63 USD.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that the Maryland court lacked jurisdiction, the judgment was obtained by fraud, natural justice was denied, and enforcement would be contrary to public policy.

The court found that the Maryland court properly assumed jurisdiction, the defendants failed to prove fraud or denial of natural justice, and there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion to enforce the foreign judgment was granted.

The applicant tenant sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent landlord from re-entering the commercial premises or interfering with its possession.

The landlord alleged the tenant was in breach of the lease due to unpaid additional rent and had previously locked the tenant out.

The court found inconsistencies in the landlord's claims regarding the amounts owed and whether a notice to renew the lease was received.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court concluded there was a serious issue to be tried, the tenant would suffer irreparable business harm if evicted, and the balance of convenience favoured the tenant.

The injunction was granted and costs were awarded to the tenant.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's habeas corpus application, the respondent Attorney General sought costs of $15,951.78.

The court noted that while costs can be awarded in habeas corpus applications relating to the administration of a lawful sentence, they must not become a roadblock to accessing the writ.

Given that the application required additional work due to the applicant's request for an adjournment to file further materials, the court fixed costs at $6,000 all inclusive.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment where the plaintiffs were awarded $94,874.27, the plaintiffs sought costs.

The plaintiffs had made an offer to settle that triggered the costs consequences of Rule 49.10.

The court found the requested fees and hourly rates to be reasonable and proportionate.

Costs were fixed at $26,355.17 all inclusive, payable by the defendant.

The father brought a motion to change regarding parenting time and access.

The court issued a temporary endorsement ordering scheduled Facetime communication, progressive in-person parenting time in Collingwood, and mandatory participation in the New Ways for Families therapy program.

The parties were also ordered to use Our Family Wizard for communication, with full reasons to follow.