M. Gregory Ellies

In this pre-trial application, the defence sought leave to introduce evidence of alternate suspects in a murder trial.

The court granted the defence's request to introduce evidence regarding Vanessa Tracey, finding a sufficient connection between her and the victim's death to establish an "air of reality" for the defence.

However, the court dismissed the application concerning Roger Busch and Laura Heavens, concluding that the evidence presented for them was insufficient to create the necessary connection to the crime and would lead to impermissible speculation by the jury.

Karly Boudreau appealed a decision that ordered Claude Morneault to have primary residence of their child if Ms. Boudreau relocated to Pembroke from Kirkland Lake.

Ms. Boudreau alleged errors in credibility findings, ineffective counsel, over-reliance on the OCL report, and misapplication of the best interests of the child and mobility tests.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal or factual errors by the trial judge, and affirmed the trial judge's thoughtful analysis of the child's best interests and mobility factors under the Children's Law Reform Act and Gordon v. Goertz.

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to introduce evidence of the accused's post-offence conduct, specifically an alleged threat to set his pregnant girlfriend on fire, as evidence of consciousness of guilt and to explain the girlfriend's delay in reporting a confession.

The court found that the evidence lacked probative value, as the inferences sought by the Crown (consciousness of guilt or intimidation) were not logically supported by the facts presented.

The court noted there was no evidence linking the alleged threat to the confession or to the girlfriend's silence.

Furthermore, even if the evidence had some probative value, its highly prejudicial effect, given the nature of the alleged threat, vastly outweighed its evidential worth.

The Crown's application was dismissed.

Blake Gennoe moved to vary a 2014 spousal support order, seeking to eliminate monthly support and arrears payments due to a material change in circumstances related to his health.

The former spouse, Deborah L. Gennoe (Ms. Laframboise), conceded a material change but argued for a reduction rather than elimination of support.

The court found that while Mr. Gennoe's health prevented him from working as an insurance broker, he failed to prove an inability to earn income in other fields.

Similarly, Ms. Laframboise's claim of inability to work was not fully accepted.

The court imputed income to both parties based on minimum wage, considering their ages and work histories.

Consequently, the court reduced ongoing monthly spousal support to $325 and monthly arrears payments to $375.

No costs were awarded due to mixed success.

Sylvia Hawkins, previously declared a vexatious litigant, sought leave to bring a motion to change a prior custody order.

The court denied her request for an adjournment and leave, finding it another attempt to re-litigate previous decisions regarding custody of Selena Antonia Schlosser.

Anthony Schlosser's cross-motion for child support and to cancel access was dismissed due to improper form under the Family Law Rules.

However, his request for clarification regarding who could pick up the child after access visits was granted, allowing his wife or other family members to do so.

Ms. Hawkins was ordered to pay Mr. Schlosser $1,000 in costs.

The North Bay Regional Health Centre brought a motion under Rule 21 to preclude Andrea Kendall from acting as a representative plaintiff in a proposed class proceeding.

The hospital argued that a release signed by Kendall in a prior medical malpractice action might impair her ability to represent the class due to a potential conflict of interest.

The court granted leave to file an affidavit from Kendall's former counsel and determined that the evidentiary record was sufficient to interpret the release.

The court found that the release, objectively interpreted based on its terms and the surrounding circumstances, did not bar Kendall's claim for tortious intrusion upon seclusion, as it was specifically limited to claims arising from the prior medical malpractice action.

Consequently, Kendall was not precluded from acting as a representative plaintiff, and the hospital's motion was dismissed.

The accused, Gary Thompson, faced two counts of attempted murder after allegedly using his motor vehicle to try and kill two individuals.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the specific intent to kill.

The court found the accused's testimony regarding a blackout and lack of intent to be inconsistent with circumstantial evidence, including text messages and the extreme force of the vehicle's impact with other objects.

The court concluded that the accused did intend to kill the victims and entered convictions for both counts of attempted murder.

The applicant, 3716724 Canada Inc., sought substantial indemnity costs against Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 375 following a successful application where the court found the respondent had unfairly disregarded the applicant's interests.

The applicant also sought costs thrown away from an adjourned hearing.

The court awarded the applicant $35,500 plus HST and disbursements, declining full substantial indemnity due to the applicant raising additional unsuccessful issues, but granting increased costs due to the respondent's unreasonable insistence on a full-time security guard despite sufficient alternative proposals.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision to certify four additional common issues in two related class actions brought by former employees regarding the distribution of a pension plan surplus.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the viability of the cause of action under s. 8(10) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, finding it was not plain and obvious that the employer-administrator was not in a conflict of interest.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to amend the class definition in one of the actions to remove restrictive and vague language.

The appellant bank appealed an interlocutory order adjourning its summary judgment motion.

The motion judge had adjourned the motion to hear oral evidence regarding whether the bank knew or should have known that the respondent's brother was using a line of credit, secured by the respondent's condominium, for his own benefit contrary to a trust agreement.

The appellant argued that under Hryniak v. Mauldin, the motion judge was required to determine if there was a genuine issue for trial based solely on the paper record before ordering oral evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Hryniak does not restrict a motion judge's inherent equitable jurisdiction to adjourn a motion and hear oral evidence to determine if a genuine issue for trial exists.

The applicant sought a vesting order to remove the respondent from the title of her home.

The applicant had contributed the vast majority of the purchase price, while the respondent was placed on title solely to secure a mortgage.

The respondent subsequently assaulted the applicant, stole her car, and fled the jurisdiction, contributing almost nothing to the property's maintenance or mortgage.

The court found the respondent was unjustly enriched and impressed a constructive trust on the property for its full value in favour of the applicant, granting the vesting order and sole possession.

The respondent husband brought a motion for spousal support following a five-year, childless marriage.

He argued the parties had agreed to a $20,000 lump sum, or alternatively sought $325 per month.

The court found no agreement for lump sum support existed, as the $20,000 discussed was for property equalization.

The court rejected compensatory support but awarded non-compensatory support due to the income disparity during the marriage.

The applicant wife was ordered to pay $325 per month for 42 months, plus $65 in costs.

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.

Following a finding that the respondent condominium corporation unfairly disregarded the applicant's interests by requiring a full-time security guard for a pay-and-display parking lot, the court determined the appropriate remedy.

The court held it had authority under s. 135(3) of the Condominium Act to permit the applicant to make the proposed changes to the common elements without requiring a vote by the unit owners under s. 97(4).

The court found a vote would place owners in a conflict of interest given the applicant's outstanding damages claim.

The court also ordered the respondent to turn on and maintain existing lighting in the parking garage.

In a divorce proceeding, the applicant amended her application to claim an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act, alleging the respondent recklessly depleted his assets by spending money on a mistress, escorts, and adult websites.

The respondent brought a motion to strike these amendments.

The court found that the amendments failed to disclose a reasonable claim because the applicant did not plead material facts showing a significant reduction in the respondent's net family property or that equalization would be unconscionable.

The motion to strike was granted without leave to amend, as it was clear the applicant could not specify the financial impact of the alleged spending.

The moving party sought a final order terminating child support and reducing spousal support based on his retirement and the terms of a separation agreement.

The responding party conceded child support should terminate but opposed the spousal support reduction.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to retirement and applied the rule against double recovery for previously equalized pension income.

The court ordered a temporary termination of child support and a stepped reduction in spousal support, imputing income to the responding party to encourage self-sufficiency.

The plaintiff corporation brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a mortgage against the defendant corporation.

The dispute involved two brothers, one acting as the plaintiff's director under a power of attorney from their father, and the other as the sole shareholder of the defendant.

The defendant argued that an oral agreement precluded enforcement and that the father lacked capacity to grant the power of attorney authorizing the action.

The court rejected the oral agreement defence based on the Statute of Frauds and the parol evidence rule.

However, finding a genuine issue regarding the father's capacity, the court stayed the motion for 30 days to allow the defendant's principal to commence proceedings under the Substitute Decisions Act to challenge the power of attorney.

In divorce proceedings, the respondent brought a motion seeking joint custody or unsupervised access, spousal support, equalization of family property, and various property-related orders.

The court declined to revisit custody and access where prior provincial court orders imposed supervised access pending unresolved criminal charges and no change in circumstances was demonstrated.

The request for spousal support was denied due to the absence of a financial statement and evidentiary foundation.

The equalization claim was dismissed as statute-barred under the six-year limitation period in the Family Law Act and the court declined to extend time.

Certain remaining property-related issues were adjourned, while the responding party was awarded costs.

The Waterloo Region District School Board appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding interest to Erbsville Road Development Inc. on expropriated land from the date of draft subdivision approval, rather than the later date of actual expropriation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under s. 33(1) of the Expropriations Act, interest can accrue from a date preceding expropriation when the owner ceases to make productive use of the land due to the impending expropriation.

The court found the board member's determination that productive use ceased upon draft approval was reasonable.

The applicant, a corporate landlord, sought judicial review to quash the City of Waterloo's Residential Rental Housing Licensing By-law.

The applicant argued the licensing fees constituted an ultra vires indirect tax and that the by-law's application to townhouses but not apartment buildings constructively discriminated against families contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the fees were validly enacted to fund the licensing program and did not constitute a tax.

The Court also held the by-law did not discriminate on the basis of family status, as it targeted specific types of dwellings rather than any protected group.