M.G. Ellies

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after encouraging her co-accused to attack the victim, who subsequently died from a stab wound.

The court found the offender's active role in instigating the confrontation and her failure to render assistance to be significant aggravating factors.

After weighing the mitigating factors, including her guilty plea and lack of a significant criminal record, the court imposed a sentence of 7.5 years imprisonment, less enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving approximately 38 months to serve.

The accused was charged with multiple firearms and drug trafficking offences following the execution of a search warrant at a basement apartment.

The police found the accused attempting to escape through a bedroom window, outside of which they located a jacket containing a loaded handgun.

Inside the bedroom, police found fentanyl, cocaine, cash, digital scales, and cell phones.

The court found the circumstantial evidence, including text messages, photos, and the accused's exclusive occupation of the bedroom, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in possession of the loaded handgun and possessed the drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused was convicted on all counts.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a child support order for the parties' adult son, who had finished playing junior hockey and was starting university.

The respondent father argued the son was not a child of the marriage during the summer before university and that his spousal support payments were sufficient.

The court found the son remained a child of the marriage and ordered the father to pay full Guidelines support for the summer months and one-third of that amount for the school months to help maintain a home for the son.

The claim for section 7 expenses was dismissed without prejudice due to insufficient financial information about the son's income and expenses.

The plaintiff employer sued its former bookkeeper and her husband's estate for damages resulting from employee theft.

The bookkeeper had previously pleaded guilty to fraud and paid $100,000 in restitution, but the employer claimed the stolen amount was much higher.

Following a summary judgment motion, a trial of the issue was ordered to determine the exact amount stolen and the extent of the husband's unjust enrichment.

Relying on forensic accounting evidence and estimating the loss despite destroyed records, the court found the bookkeeper stole $204,670.

The claim for unjust enrichment against the husband's estate was dismissed due to insufficient evidence to quantify the enrichment.

Judgment was granted for the remaining $104,670.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure of its intention to dismiss five related proceedings commenced by the plaintiff in 2005 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff failed to respond to the notice.

The court found the pleadings to be incomprehensible, repetitive, and abusive, naming dozens of defendants with no material facts against some.

The court dismissed all five actions for being an abuse of process and for excessive delay.

The father brought a motion for a temporary parenting time order after the children, aged 11 and 13, refused to visit him due to his unpredictable outbursts and anger management issues.

The court considered the children's wishes and fears, finding them reasonable.

To ensure the children's emotional and psychological safety, the court suspended the previous parenting regime and ordered a gradual, monitored reintroduction through brief visits in public places, along with mandatory anger management counselling for the father and continued therapy for the children.

The applicant moved for a temporary order for spousal support following the breakdown of a 30-year traditional marriage.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the applicant suffered no economic disadvantage and failed to mitigate expenses by selling the matrimonial home.

The court found the applicant entitled to support on a non-compensatory and compensatory basis under the Family Law Act.

The court ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range ($2,568 per month) until the matrimonial home is sold, after which support will reduce to the mid-range amount ($2,297 per month).

The young person appeared before the Superior Court of Justice for a detention review under section 525 of the Criminal Code.

The court raised the issue of its jurisdiction to conduct the review under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court held that because the young person had not elected to be tried in the Superior Court, the court was not deemed a youth justice court and therefore lacked jurisdiction.

The matter was transferred to the Ontario Court of Justice.

The applicant moved for an order requiring the respondent to pay his proportionate share of their adult son's section 7 expenses, including computer, chiropractic, gym, and personal trainer costs related to his hockey career and online education.

The respondent argued the son was an adult and the expenses were unnecessary.

The court found the son remained a child of the marriage under the Divorce Act as he was unable to withdraw from his parents' charge while pursuing a reasonable career in the OHL during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court ordered the respondent to pay his proportionate share of $3,127.34.

The respondent father brought a motion to change seeking a contribution from the applicant mother for section 7 expenses relating to their son's university moving costs and their daughter's hockey equipment, as well as a variation of ongoing child support for the son who was attending university away from home.

The court ordered the mother to pay her proportionate share of the son's moving expenses, finding she had unreasonably withheld consent, but dismissed the claim for hockey expenses as they were not extraordinary.

The motion to vary ongoing child support was dismissed with leave to renew due to insufficient evidence regarding the son's post-secondary expenses and ability to contribute.

The parties, former common-law spouses, brought competing motions for summary judgment regarding the ownership of their former home.

The applicant had previously transferred his 50 percent joint interest in the property to the respondent gratuitously to protect it from creditors.

The court found that the gratuitous transfer created a presumption of resulting trust, which the respondent failed to rebut, as an intention to defeat creditors is not conclusive evidence of a gift.

The applicant's motion for a declaration of a resulting trust was granted, and the respondent's motion to dismiss or compel undertakings was dismissed.

However, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's substantial indemnity costs of $5,000 due to his conduct in the litigation.

The applicant sought an order quashing a 2003 decision of a Superior Court judge that declined to hear his applications regarding earlier criminal convictions.

The applicant sought to purge his criminal record and claim damages.

The court dismissed the application, holding that one Superior Court judge has no jurisdiction to grant an extraordinary remedy, such as certiorari or prohibition, in connection with the decision of another Superior Court judge.

The court also invited the Crown to consider seeking a vexatious litigant order if the applicant brings further related proceedings.

The accused, a 79-year-old man, sought release on a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

He was charged with attempted murder and other offences against his former common-law spouse, and subsequently breached a non-communication order while in custody.

Despite a proposed release plan involving GPS monitoring, CCTV, and sureties, and evidence that the accused may be suffering from dementia requiring assessment, the court found the plan insufficient to mitigate the risks.

The court concluded that continued detention was necessary on both the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The offender, an Indigenous man, was convicted of sexual assault, forcible confinement, assault, and threatening his former intimate partner, an Indigenous woman.

The Crown sought a global sentence of five years, while the defence sought two years.

The court weighed the aggravating factors, including the victim's vulnerability and the impact of the offences, against significant mitigating factors, particularly the offender's Indigenous background (Gladue factors), onerous bail conditions, and strong potential for rehabilitation.

The court sentenced the offender to a global term of two years' imprisonment, along with ancillary orders.

The parties brought competing motions regarding parenting time and decision-making for their two young children.

The mother sought to restrict the father's parenting time based on allegations of physical abuse, which the Children's Aid Society could not verify.

The court found the father's evidence more credible, dismissed the mother's motions, and granted the father unsupervised parenting time according to a previously agreed-upon schedule, along with shared decision-making responsibility.

Both parties' requests for a police enforcement clause were dismissed.

The accused was charged with trafficking fentanyl, criminal negligence causing death, and manslaughter following the overdose death of an acquaintance.

In pretrial motions, the Crown sought to admit two police statements, while the defence sought to exclude the statements and text messages found on the deceased's cell phone.

The court found the statements were voluntary and not obtained in breach of s. 10 of the Charter.

However, the court ruled that the warrantless search of the deceased's cell phone at the scene violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

The court excised the text messages from the search warrant information, found the remaining grounds insufficient, and excluded the text message evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The defendants were previously granted leave to examine a non-party under Rule 31.10.

The court had initially expressed reluctance to award costs due to the poor quality of the defendants' motion materials, which made it difficult to determine the relevance of the proposed evidence.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $13,916.32.

The court awarded a reduced lump sum of $3,500, noting that while the defendants satisfied the rule's requirements on their second attempt, the costs award must reflect the inadequacy of their materials, which did not even include a factum.

The defendant brought a motion requesting the presiding judge recuse himself because the judge, prior to his appointment, had briefly represented the defendant's counsel and had also represented the local police service in a matter involving the same counsel.

The Criminal Lawyers' Association intervened, arguing for an automatic disqualification rule when a judge's former client appears as counsel.

The court rejected the automatic disqualification argument, applying the standard test for reasonable apprehension of bias.

Finding that the prior retainers were over 20 years old and did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias, the court dismissed the recusal motion.

The defendant hospital and nurses brought a motion for summary judgment and to dismiss the plaintiff's medical malpractice action.

The court found that the moving parties failed to meet their evidentiary burden for summary judgment because they did not file expert evidence establishing they met the standard of care.

However, the court dismissed the action under Rule 15.04 because the plaintiff failed to appoint a new lawyer or file a notice of intention to act in person for over 18 months after his former lawyer was removed from the record.

The defendant dentists and physicians brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's dental and medical malpractice action.

The plaintiff alleged that he suffered a mandibular fracture following a wisdom tooth extraction and that the defendants failed to properly diagnose the injury.

The plaintiff's lawyer was previously removed from the record, and the plaintiff failed to appoint a new lawyer or serve notice of self-representation.

The defendants filed expert reports opining that they met the standard of care.

The plaintiff failed to respond with any expert evidence.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial without expert evidence from the plaintiff.