M. Gibson

The applicant, facing multiple serious charges including drug trafficking and flight from police, applied for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown conceded a material change in circumstances, prompting a de novo hearing.

The court found that the applicant, who had repeatedly breached previous release conditions, posed a substantial risk of reoffending that could not be adequately managed by the proposed release plan, which included GPS monitoring and his parents as sureties.

The application was dismissed, with the court concluding that continued detention was justified on both the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The applicant estate trustee sought directions regarding the interpretation of a will where a named beneficiary predeceased the testator.

The will directed the residue to be distributed 'per capita' and explicitly defined it as the antithesis of 'per stirpes'.

The court found this indicated a contrary intention to the anti-lapse provisions of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court determined the gift was not a class gift and therefore the predeceased beneficiary's share lapsed and must be distributed on an intestacy.

The applicant, an estate trustee, brought an application to determine the ownership of joint bank accounts held by the deceased and the respondent, the other estate trustee.

The respondent argued the accounts passed to her by right of survivorship.

The court applied the presumption of resulting trust and found that the bank signature cards and financial services agreements were insufficient to rebut the presumption.

The accounts were declared estate assets, and the respondent was ordered to provide an updated accounting.

The parties were also directed to discuss the disposition of the deceased's ashes.

The applicant brought a motion to change a final order, seeking sole decision-making responsibility and the imputation of income to the respondent for child support purposes.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking sole decision-making responsibility and a reduction in child support due to a change in employment.

The court dismissed both parties' requests to change decision-making responsibility, finding no material change in circumstances despite their high-conflict relationship.

The court declined to impute income to the respondent, finding her underemployment was justified by reasonable educational needs, but adjusted child support based on her current and anticipated income.

The self-represented parties engaged in a high-conflict family law trial primarily concerning financial issues, including exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, spousal support, and division of net family property.

The trial judge noted significant evidentiary deficiencies, as neither party presented a coherent case or sufficient evidence to substantiate most claims.

The court granted the applicant exclusive possession of the matrimonial home under s. 24 of the Family Law Act to prevent an escalation of family violence and in the best interests of the child.

The parties were ordered to share section 7 expenses equally, while the applicant's claims for spousal support, child support arrears, and unequal division of net family property were dismissed due to a lack of evidentiary foundation.

The respondent mother brought a motion to change a 2017 consent order to reinstate parenting time with her child, which had been suspended since 2020.

The mother struggled with severe substance abuse, mental health issues, and instability, and exhibited inappropriate behaviour during the virtual trial.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

Finding that the mother's current instability posed a risk to the child's safety and well-being, the court dismissed the motion to change, maintaining the suspension of parenting time.

The plaintiff sued his former solicitor and law firm for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty regarding the preparation of a marriage contract.

The marriage contract was previously set aside in a divorce proceeding because the plaintiff's former spouse did not understand its nature and consequences, largely due to the solicitor's failure to ensure proper independent legal advice and his conflict of interest.

The court found the solicitor breached the standard of care and his fiduciary duties.

The court held that 'but for' the solicitor's negligence, the marriage contract would have been enforceable, and awarded the plaintiff damages for the equalization payment, legal costs, and financing interest incurred.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for assault and assault with a weapon, seeking to withdraw his guilty pleas on the basis that they were involuntary, uninformed, and the result of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish that his pleas were invalid or that he suffered prejudice.

The court rejected the appellant's credibility, noting he admitted to lying to the court during his plea allocution to achieve his goals.

During a jury trial for aggravated assault and discharging a firearm, the defence applied for a mistrial after the Crown disclosed two screenshots mid-trial.

The defence had already aggressively cross-examined key Crown witnesses, suggesting they were lying about the existence of these screenshots because they had not been disclosed.

The court found that the late disclosure significantly prejudiced the accused's right to make full answer and defence, as the defence's tactical approach was based on the non-disclosure.

Concluding that no lesser remedy such as an adjournment or jury instruction would suffice, the court granted the mistrial.

The applicant, charged with fraudulent personation, brought a pre-trial application seeking to exclude evidence seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant, alleging a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The applicant argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) was facially invalid because it failed to sufficiently connect him to the IP address used in the offences or establish that a search of his new residence would afford evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the ITO contained a sufficient circumstantial basis linking the applicant to the IP address and establishing reasonable grounds to believe electronic devices would be found at his residence.

The warrant was validly issued, and no Charter breach occurred.

The moving party father brought a motion for unsupervised parenting time with the parties' two children.

The responding party mother opposed, citing a history of physical and emotional abuse, and requested that any parenting time be supervised.

Applying the recently amended Divorce Act, the court found that a cooperative parenting regime was not appropriate due to the high conflict and allegations of family violence.

The court granted the motion in part, ordering that the father have supervised parenting time, with supervision to be provided by his parents.

The applicant sought to set aside a default judgment for foreclosure obtained by a private mortgage lender after she missed a single $650 payment.

The property, valued at $575,000, was sold to a third-party corporation for $425,000.

The court found that the equities favoured the applicant, noting the disproportionate consequences of her default and that the purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

The court also found the default judgment was irregularly obtained because the assignee of the mortgage failed to give the applicant written notice of the assignment before foreclosing.

The application was granted, the default judgment set aside, and the property ordered to be sold at fair market value.

The offender was convicted of multiple counts of assault, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, and mischief against his intimate partner and her son over a 15-month period.

The assaults caused permanent and life-altering injuries to the partner, including facial disfigurement.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a suspended or minimal custodial sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence but also considered the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, and rehabilitative potential.

The offender was sentenced to a global custodial term of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation.