M. Gregory Ellies

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to enforce a settlement agreement reached between the parties' counsel.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that their lawyer lacked authority to settle for the agreed amount and that they had recently discovered billing fraud by the plaintiff.

The court found that the defendants' lawyer had apparent authority to bind them and that the defendants were already aware of the alleged billing issues before the settlement was finalized.

Consequently, the court allowed the motion and granted judgment in accordance with the settlement terms.

The defendant, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, moved for an order requiring the plaintiff’s accident benefits insurer to produce a file relating to a 2011 motor vehicle accident, arguing its relevance to a 2017 accident at issue in the present action.

The court found the moving party failed to establish either the relevance of the documents or that it would be unfair to proceed to trial without them, and dismissed the motion.

The court also awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The court considered a motion for judgment based on the defendants’ failure to respond to requests to admit under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff sought judgment for monies allegedly owing for asbestos removal services.

The court allowed the defendants a tightly timetabled opportunity to move to withdraw their deemed admissions, citing fairness and the lack of non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff.

The court also addressed the issue of corporate representation, refusing further leave for the corporate defendant to be represented by a non-lawyer.

The decision addresses the allocation of costs following a motion regarding the fairness and reasonableness of a contingency fee agreement in a personal injury settlement involving a minor.

The court awards full indemnity costs for guardianship proceedings and partial/substantial indemnity costs for the fees motion, analyzing the appropriateness of the costs claimed and the conduct of the parties.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that dismissed its grievance regarding the calculation of partial-day absences for relief letter carriers.

The arbitrator had found that the collective agreement did not require rounding up daily totals of partial absences and had considered the union's history of withdrawing similar grievances.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and use of extrinsic evidence were justified and internally coherent.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

This decision addresses an application for a stay of proceedings under sections 11(b) and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, brought by Nicholas Aaron Martin and Mackenzie Doyle.

The applicants, charged with serious offences including robbery and pointing a firearm, argued that the delay in bringing their case to trial—over 52 months—exceeded the presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court analyzed the sources of delay, including the presence of multiple accused and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and found that the net delay still exceeded the ceiling.

The court ordered a stay of proceedings.

This decision concerns the allocation of costs following the settlement of two related personal injury actions arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court addresses disputes over the reasonableness and recoverability of various disbursements and legal fees, including expert reports, travel, and office expenses.

The court reduces certain disbursements and fees, providing detailed reasons for each adjustment, and clarifies the principles for assessing costs in complex personal injury litigation.

Norman Ellis pleaded guilty to one count of sexual exploitation under section 153(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The court considered whether the sentence should be served in custody or in the community.

The Crown sought a five-year penitentiary sentence; the defence sought less than two years to allow for a conditional sentence.

The court reviewed the facts, aggravating and mitigating factors, and relevant sentencing principles, ultimately imposing a five-year custodial sentence.

The decision discusses the gravity of sexual offences against minors, the impact on the victim, and the unavailability of a conditional sentence in these circumstances.

The court considered three motions under the Family Law Rules: one by the applicant to note the respondent in default for failing to respond to a motion to change, and two by the respondent that did not comply with the Rules.

The court granted the respondent a brief extension to comply and struck most of her non-compliant materials.

The decision discusses the respondent's repeated non-compliance, her excuses, and the importance of following procedural rules, especially in family law matters involving children.

On a pre-trial Charter application, the accused sought exclusion of police photographs of text messages taken from the complainant's phone with her consent.

The court held that the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in texts exchanged during the parties' romantic relationship, but not in texts exchanged after the relationship ended in which the complainant accused him of rape.

Photographing the relationship texts constituted at least a search, and the complainant's consent could not authorize a third-party waiver of the accused's s. 8 rights, making the warrantless search unreasonable.

Applying s. 24(2), the court declined to exclude the evidence because the police conduct was inadvertent, the privacy impact was minimal given the complainant could testify to the texts, and society's interest in adjudicating the serious charges on their merits was high.

The plaintiffs, Lloyd Newton and the Estate of Donna Marion, brought an action against the Anishinabek Police Services and related defendants for damages arising from criminal charges laid against them, which were later withdrawn after restitution.

The claims included negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, and a variety of other torts.

The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The judge held that most claims were not actionable by the plaintiffs, and that the criminal proceedings did not terminate in the plaintiffs’ favour, precluding claims for malicious prosecution and negligent investigation.

The accused, A.M.T., was charged with sexual assault.

The sole issue at trial was initially presented as identity, but the court found that the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s account were also at issue.

The court reviewed the evidence, including inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements, lack of corroborating evidence, and implausibilities in the narrative.

The court concluded that there was reasonable doubt as to the accused’s guilt and acquitted A.M.T.

The respondent brought a motion for a temporary order for primary residence of the children and weekend parenting time for the applicant.

The applicant cross-moved for the children to attend a different school on Bear Island and for primary residence with her.

The court found that the applicant had been removing the children from their current school in North Bay, Vincent Massey, despite a previous order.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding her reasons for relocation and school change unconvincing and her actions detrimental to the children's best interests.

The respondent's motion was allowed, granting him primary residence and establishing a new parenting schedule for the applicant, with the children to remain at Vincent Massey.

Costs were awarded to the respondent due to the applicant's inappropriate conduct.

The court considered a motion for approval of a contingency fee agreement (CFA) in a medical malpractice action that settled for $14 million.

The litigation guardian challenged the proposed fee of approximately $4.1 million.

The court found the CFA was neither fair when entered into nor reasonable at present due to non-compliance with regulatory requirements and the disproportionate fee relative to the client's damages.

The proposed fee was disallowed, and a reduced fee of $3,250,000, plus HST and disbursements, was ordered, applying a staggered percentage approach.

The accused sought an order severing sexual offence counts involving three complainants into separate trials, or alternatively into two trials separating older allegations from newer ones.

Applying the severance factors under s. 591(3) of the Criminal Code, the court held that the applicant had not shown on a balance of probabilities that severance was required in the interests of justice.

Overlapping narrative evidence, direct overlap between two complainants' evidence, the real possibility of successful similar fact admissibility, and delay concerns tied to trial scheduling all favoured joinder.

The application was dismissed.

Tracy Lee Teeple applied for dependant relief against the estate of Stephen Thomsen.

The claim was settled for $225,000.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) moved for approval of the settlement and for an order that it be funded rateably by beneficiaries under both the primary and secondary wills.

The court approved the settlement but ordered that it be funded rateably only by the legatees of the primary estate, finding that a reasonable testator would have intended the shares of the company (governed by the secondary will) to pass separately and unaffected by primary will bequests.

Michael Malabre was convicted following a jury trial of possessing cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possessing the proceeds of crime under $5,000.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of five to seven years, while the defence requested a conditional sentence of 18 to 24 months, citing pre-trial custody conditions and the effects of anti-Black racism.

The court found a conditional sentence inappropriate, imposing a sentence of four years and nine months incarceration.

The judge considered aggravating factors including the dangerous nature and quantity of drugs (fentanyl), the commercial scale of the trafficking, evidence of prior sales, and the mixing of drugs.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, difficult upbringing, and harsh pre-trial detention and stringent bail conditions.

The court found insufficient evidence to connect anti-Black racism to the offender's moral blameworthiness in this specific case.

J.H., accused of three sexual offences, applied for a stay of proceedings under ss. 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to unreasonable delay.

The court calculated the total delay, deducted defence delay and exceptional circumstances (COVID-19 pandemic), and found the remaining delay of 34.5 months exceeded the presumptive ceiling of 30 months established in R. v. Jordan.

The application was allowed, and the charges were stayed.

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 respondent, Walter Kennedy, moved for an order for partition and sale of a home solely owned by the applicant, Sherri Romain, located on Nipissing First Nation land.

The motion, essentially seeking partial summary judgment, raised complex issues regarding property rights on reserve land and the applicability of the Nipissing First Nation Matrimonial Real Property Law, as the Family Law Act and Partition Act were deemed inapplicable.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing the highly conflicting evidence regarding contributions to the home and reiterating the Court of Appeal's strong caution against granting partial summary judgments, as it would not dispose of the case or substantially shorten the trial.