M. Gregory Ellies

The applicant sought an order for partition and sale of a jointly owned 61-acre rural property.

The respondent opposed the motion, raising five arguments including allegations of perjury, disputes over property valuation, child support arrears, equalization of net family property, and claims of hardship.

The court dismissed all of the respondent's arguments, finding them unpersuasive and unsupported by evidence.

The court granted the order for partition and sale, concluding that the hardship to the applicant if the property were not sold far outweighed any potential hardship to the respondent.

The defendant moved to strike the plaintiff's claim for damages for wrongful distraint under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The plaintiff sought damages for relational economic loss, arguing it had a possessory or proprietary interest in restaurant equipment distrained by the defendant landlord from a previous tenant.

The court found that because the defendant had withheld consent to assign the lease to the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not establish a possessory or proprietary interest in the chattels.

The motion was allowed and the claim was dismissed without leave to amend.

The applicant brought a motion within a family law application for equalization of net family property, seeking the partition and sale of a jointly owned property and the vesting of the respondent's corporate shares in her name.

The applicant argued these orders were necessary to preserve her entitlement to an equalization payment due to the respondent's depletion of assets and failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a sale would cause undue hardship to the respondent, who suffered from severe alcoholism, and that the applicant failed to demonstrate the necessity of the orders to secure her claim.

A non-depletion order was issued against the respondent.

In a family motion concerning temporary parenting arrangements, the court addressed sexual abuse allegations advanced by the mother as a basis to deny the father access.

After reviewing the chronology, the circumstances of the alleged disclosures, inconsistencies in the evidence, the lack of opportunity, and the contents of police and child protection investigations, the court was not persuaded there was any truth to the allegations and ordered reasonable access.

The court also requested the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, made a restricted access and publication order under s. 70 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, directed production of the unredacted child protection file, and declined to permit filing of police interview videos at that stage.

Costs were awarded to the father on the main issues.

David Lewington, a shareholder and officer of Dalew Farms Inc., brought a motion under Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to represent the corporation as a non-lawyer.

The motion was unopposed.

The court reviewed factors for granting such leave, including the corporation's structure, the representative's connection and capability, and financial capacity to retain counsel.

Despite vague evidence regarding financial inability, the court granted leave, noting the unopposed nature of the request and the other factors weighing in favour.

The respondent husband brought a motion to transfer a family law application for spousal support and equalization from Kingston to North Bay.

The applicant wife had properly commenced the application in Kingston, where she resided.

The court applied the test for transferring venue, requiring the moving party to demonstrate that the proposed venue is substantially better.

The court found that the husband's reasons, including his business location, family property, and childcare responsibilities, did not outweigh the significant difficulty a transfer would pose for the wife.

The motion was dismissed.

Sentencing decision involving guilty pleas to multiple offences including sexual assaults, drug trafficking, assault, and threatening against several young women over an extended period.

The court treated denunciation, deterrence, separation from society, proportionality, victim harm, breach of probation, and youth of certain victims as significant aggravating considerations, while also giving substantial weight to the offender's guilty pleas, remorse, rehabilitative efforts, difficult upbringing, and Gladue factors.

Applying the Gladue and Ipeelee framework, the court found systemic and background factors materially reduced moral blameworthiness but did not eliminate the need for a penitentiary-range sentence.

Enhanced pre-sentence credit beyond 1.5 to 1 was refused.

A global sentence of 72 months less 62 months' credit, leaving 10 further months in custody followed by 12 months' probation, was imposed together with DNA, SOIRA, and no-contact orders.

The applicant brought a pre-trial change of venue application before the Regional Senior Judge.

A temporary publication ban was imposed, and the court invited submissions on whether section 648(1) of the Criminal Code automatically bans publication of information regarding pre-trial applications heard before a jury is chosen.

The court held that section 648(1) does not apply to applications heard before a jury is empanelled, nor to change of venue applications, nor to applications heard by a judge other than the trial judge.

Instead, publication bans for such pre-trial applications must be determined using the common law Dagenais/Mentuck test.

The accused underwent a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code after being in custody for over four months on charges of uttering threats and breach of probation.

The court found that while the secondary grounds for detention were met due to the likelihood of reoffending, the accused had already served more time in pre-trial custody (with enhanced credit) than the likely maximum sentence of six months.

Consequently, the court ordered the accused's release on terms.

The applicant mother moved for week-about access to her two children, who had been living with the respondent father since separation.

The father opposed, citing the mother's ongoing substance abuse and mental health issues, which had led to CAS involvement.

The court found that the current access arrangements lacked structure and required a change.

However, due to the mother's ongoing issues and the negative impact on the children, the court denied week-about access and instead ordered a temporary weekend access regime.

The applicant, charged with second-degree murder in a 1998 cold case, applied to change the venue of his trial from Sudbury to Toronto, arguing that extensive pre-trial publicity and public support for the victim made it impossible to empanel an impartial jury in the Northeast Region.

The court reviewed the extent and content of the media coverage, social media commentary, and a public opinion survey.

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a fair and reasonable likelihood of widespread partiality or prejudice that could not be overcome by the safeguards of the jury system.

The application was dismissed, though the court noted the trial might still be moved within the region due to COVID-19 constraints, and imposed a publication ban on specific portions of the reasons.

The accused, facing charges of dangerous driving and trafficking large quantities of fentanyl, underwent a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The accused argued that the passage of time, the COVID-19 pandemic, and a new release plan constituted material changes in circumstances warranting his release.

The court found insufficient evidence that the accused was at a greater risk of contracting COVID-19 or suffering severe harm from it in custody.

Furthermore, the proposed release plan lacked sufficient detail to address the significant secondary and tertiary ground concerns arising from the severity of the offences.

The court ordered the accused's continued detention.

The applicant sought to quash four municipal by-laws permitting the development of an arena and casino outside the downtown area, alleging statutory non-compliance, procedural unfairness, disqualifying bias, and bad faith.

The court found that the municipality complied with the Planning Act and gaming regulations, provided adequate public consultation, and that the council members did not exhibit disqualifying bias or act in bad faith.

The application was dismissed.

The mother moved to stay a temporary order granting the father supervised access to two children pending an appeal.

The father had previous convictions for sexual interference involving young girls.

The court granted the stay regarding the female child, finding that the motion judge lacked sufficient evidence about the circumstances of the father's prior convictions to ensure the proposed supervision would adequately protect the child.

The stay was granted without prejudice to the father providing further evidence.

The Caisse Populaire de North Bay Limitée moved for summary judgment seeking possession of a mortgaged property due to default on two mortgages and dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim alleging oppressive conduct.

The defendant, Christi-Anne Marie Lafrance, disputed the validity and amounts of the mortgages, arguing they were stayed or discharged by her bankruptcy, and that the Caisse engaged in oppressive conduct.

The court granted leave to amend the plaintiff's name to Caisse Populaire Alliance Limitée, granted summary judgment on the Caisse's claim, and dismissed the counterclaim, finding no genuine issue for trial.

The court clarified that secured debts are not stayed or discharged by bankruptcy if the debtor continues to benefit from the contract.

The appellant and respondent were registered as 50% owners of a property.

The respondent applied for a sale under the Partition Act, while the appellant sought a declaration that the respondent held his interest in trust for her.

The application judge found the transfer was not gratuitous and ordered the sale.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the finding that the transfer was not wholly gratuitous, as the respondent had assumed liability for the mortgage.

However, the court found the application judge erred in granting the respondent a full 50% interest, as the appellant's sister had transferred her 50% interest to the parties equally.

The court concluded the respondent held a 25% interest, with the remaining 25% held in trust for the appellant.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the property was ordered to be sold.

The defendants moved to transfer the action from Toronto to Sudbury, arguing that Sudbury was a significantly better venue.

The plaintiff opposed, partly on the basis that the motion was brought late.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's procedural objection, finding no prejudice from the three-day delay.

Applying Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) holistically, the court found that factors such as where the events occurred, where damages were sustained, the subject matter's location, and the convenience of parties and most witnesses favored Sudbury.

The court also noted that the availability of case management and judicial facilities was neutral.

The motion to transfer was granted.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing grievances related to pension grow-in benefits for employees who were indefinitely laid off following a plant idling.

The arbitrator found the employees were not terminated by the employer, but rather terminated their own employment by electing to take severance pay instead of retaining recall rights.

The Divisional Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding the arbitrator's failure to consider section 4(2) of O. Reg. 288/01 under the Employment Standards Act constituted a fundamental gap in reasoning.

The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator for a new hearing.

The appellants, minority shareholders in a family holding company controlled by their father, appealed a decision dismissing their claim for breach of fiduciary duty and ordering them to sell their shares as a remedy for oppression.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the application judge erred in fact and law by failing to recognize the father's self-dealing and breach of fiduciary duty when he purchased shares through his own company and later sold them to the family holding company for a substantial profit.

The court also found the forced sale of the appellants' shares was manifestly unjust and failed to consider their reasonable expectations.

The court ordered the father and his company to disgorge the profits to the holding company, removed the father as a director of the appellants' holding company, and awarded costs to the appellants.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 13.1.02 to transfer an action from Toronto to North Bay, arguing there was no real connection to Toronto and that the property, parties, and witnesses were located in Kirkland Lake.

The defendant was self-represented and did not oppose the motion.

The court granted the transfer but directed the action to Haileybury, which was identified as the Superior Court closest to Kirkland Lake, to better facilitate the defendant's participation, rather than North Bay as requested by the plaintiff.

No costs were awarded as the motion was unopposed.