Michael Bordin

The accused was charged with multiple counts of arson and public mischief following a fire that destroyed his truck and damaged adjacent vehicles and a building.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including surveillance videos and the testimony of the accused's former fiancée.

The court found the accused guilty of arson seriously threatening another's property and arson for a fraudulent purpose, concluding he intentionally set fire to his own insured truck.

However, the accused was acquitted of the remaining arson charges because the Crown failed to prove the ownership of the other damaged vehicles.

The plaintiff, Joseph Grimaldi, sued the defendants for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without cause less than five months into his employment as a senior project manager.

Grimaldi claimed entitlement to a payment based on shares in the defendant company as part of his employment contract.

The court interpreted the employment contract, finding that shares would only transfer after five years of service and annual payments were akin to a bonus based on company value.

The court assessed reasonable notice using Bardal factors, finding no inducement or bad faith dismissal.

It determined a reasonable notice period of five months and two weeks.

Grimaldi's claims for annual payment and shares were dismissed due to the notice period not reaching the accrual date and lack of evidence for company valuation.

The claim against the individual defendant, Vince Volpe, was dismissed due to lack of evidence for personal liability.

The defendant, Jean Auclair, was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking fentanyl and possession of proceeds obtained by crime.

The charges arose after nurses found drugs and cash in his shorts while he was in the ICU for a suspected overdose.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging unreasonable search and seizure by nurses (as state actors/agents) and police.

The court found that nurses were not state actors or police agents, and their search was reasonable for medical purposes.

The police seizure was found to engage s. 8 but was justified under s. 489(2) of the Criminal Code.

Even if there were Charter breaches, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The court found Auclair guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, but not guilty of the included offence of simple possession due to the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act (CDSA s. 4.1(2)).

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant to attend examinations for discovery, and the defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs, arguing they were undischarged bankrupts and nominal plaintiffs.

The court dismissed the motion for security for costs, finding that the individual plaintiff was not a nominal plaintiff and that it would not be just to order security given the plaintiffs' strong case on the merits that their financial ruin was caused by the defendants' actions.

The court granted the motion to compel discovery, ordering the defendant to attend by video in short increments to accommodate his health issues.

The plaintiffs brought a negligence claim against the school board, principal, and vice-principal for injuries sustained by the student plaintiff during a schoolyard assault by other students.

The plaintiffs alleged that the school failed to properly supervise the students and investigate prior incidents of bullying, which culminated in an assault that caused permanent tinnitus.

The court found that while the school breached the standard of care in failing to investigate a prior incident and losing an accident report, these breaches did not cause the assault, which was a sudden and unexpected event during a hidden game of tackle football.

The claim was dismissed as the plaintiffs failed to establish cause in fact.

The applicant brought an urgent motion seeking child support based on imputed income, a restraining order, and continued payment of household expenses.

The respondent sought an interim parenting schedule.

The court imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes, ordered the respondent to continue paying household expenses, and established a new parenting time schedule.

The request for a restraining order was denied due to insufficient evidence of reasonable grounds for fear.

The Crown brought a motion to admit RBC and Tangerine banking records for the truth of their contents in a criminal proceeding involving charges of Fraud Over $5,000 and Uttering a Forged Document.

The respondent conceded the admissibility of the Tangerine records.

However, the court dismissed the Crown's motion to admit the RBC records, finding that the Crown failed to provide the necessary evidentiary foundation under section 29 of the Canada Evidence Act, the common law business records exception, or as real evidence.

The court rejected the Crown's request to take judicial notice of the required evidentiary facts for the RBC records, emphasizing that such facts were too close to the dispositive issues and that judicial notice would subvert the statutory requirements.

This is a costs ruling following the dismissal of a motion by Medcap Real Estate Holdings Inc. to dismiss or stay multiple actions brought by Bennington Financial Corp. Medcap had argued that Bennington failed to disclose a settlement agreement that altered the litigation landscape.

The court previously found no disclosure requirement and dismissed Medcap's motion.

In this costs decision, Bennington sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the motion was complex and an attack on its counsel.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, finding Medcap's conduct did not warrant sanction.

The court also addressed the assessment of costs for in-house counsel, adjusting Bennington's claimed hourly rates to reflect a reasonable partial indemnity rate.

The applicant sought to extend an interlocutory motion and an interim injunction.

The respondent opposed, alleging the applicant failed to disclose material facts on the initial ex parte motion.

The court found the CaseLines file disorganized, with duplicate materials and non-compliant factums from both parties, making it unprepared for a hearing.

The motion was adjourned, and the existing injunctions were extended without prejudice.

The court issued strict directions for both parties to reorganize their filings, including deleting duplicates, filing compliant factums with proper citations and hyperlinks, preparing bookmarked compendiums, and filing a joint motion confirmation form, emphasizing adherence to the Rules of Civil Procedure and practice directions regarding hearing preparation and material submission.

The plaintiff's property experienced flooding and damage due to storm sewer installation by the defendant City in 2002.

The plaintiff commenced an action in 2021, alleging negligence.

The City brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred by both the ultimate 15-year limitation period and the two-year basic limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the claim was based on a singular act of negligence in 2002, not a continuous act, and that the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge to commence proceedings well before the two-year period expired.

Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding it statute-barred.

The defendant, Medcap Real Estate Holdings Inc., brought motions to dismiss or stay actions by Bennington Financial Corp. and Heffner Investments Limited.

Medcap alleged that the plaintiffs, along with other non-parties, entered into an undisclosed agreement to only settle collectively, which Medcap argued constituted an abuse of process requiring immediate disclosure.

The court found that such a verbal "settle with one, settle with all" agreement existed.

However, the court determined that this agreement was not required to be disclosed because it did not "entirely change the landscape of the litigation in a way that significantly altered the adversarial relationship among the parties or the dynamics of the litigation" as the plaintiffs were already aligned in interest through prior agreements and conduct.

Consequently, Medcap's motions were dismissed.

During a trial, the plaintiffs sought to admit a police report for the truth of its contents, citing the unavailability of the drafting officer and the report's reliability as an independent investigation.

Alternatively, they argued for its admission as a business record under the Evidence Act.

The defendants opposed, raising concerns about hearsay reliability and the report's content.

The court ruled the police report admissible as a business record, but with significant limitations: it was admissible for the officer's personal observations, communications, and understanding of events, and for party admissions against interest.

However, it was explicitly ruled inadmissible for the truth of non-party hearsay statements, opinions, impressions, or histories, particularly where sources were unidentified.

The plaintiffs' request for an unredacted report was also denied due to lack of proper motion and jurisdiction.

The applicant father sought expanded parenting time and decision-making responsibility for his two children, and reconciliation counselling for the older child.

The court considered the best interests of the children, including the impact of historical family violence and the mother's potential alienation.

The court ordered increased unsupervised parenting time for the younger child, and immediate commencement of therapeutic reconciliation counselling for the older child.

The court declined to order joint decision-making at this stage and denied the applicant's request for security for costs, while emphasizing that prior cost orders must be paid.

This action arose from a slip and fall.

Defendant On-Site Maintenance & Repairs Inc., a winter maintenance contractor, brought a motion for dismissal based on formal and deemed admissions.

By the time of the hearing, the sole issue was costs.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to act reasonably in response to information indicating On-Site was not responsible for the area of the fall, and persisted in the claim despite opportunities to discontinue.

The court dismissed the action against On-Site and awarded costs to On-Site, emphasizing the plaintiff's unreasonable conduct in prolonging the litigation.

The applicant brought a short motion seeking interim orders to vary existing final orders regarding decision-making authority for a child and to restrict communications between the parties, as well as leave to amend pleadings.

The respondent sought an adjournment.

The court found significant non-compliance by both parties with the Central South and Provincial Notices to the Profession regarding affidavit page limits, exhibit limits, double spacing, and timely uploading of materials to CaseLines.

Emphasizing the importance of adhering to practice directions and the proper allocation of court resources, the court adjourned the motion to a long motion, providing specific directions for future filings and reserving costs.

The Children's Aid Society of the Niagara Region brought a motion for summary judgment to place two children, A. (5 years old) and H. (17 months old), in extended society care for adoption without parental access.

The Society cited parental instability, substance misuse, and lack of engagement.

The mother (M.B.) and father (D.J.) opposed, arguing for a trial and asserting the Society had not provided adequate support.

The court found the children were in continued need of protection and ordered extended society care for both, noting that statutory timelines for interim care had been exceeded.

However, the court found genuine issues for trial regarding access for M.B. and D.J., as the Society failed to provide sufficient evidence that access would impair adoption opportunities or was not in the children's best interests.

Access for J.S.J.M. (H.'s father) was denied due to complete lack of involvement.

The applicant moved to set aside a final order that terminated her spousal support, claiming she had no notice of the respondent's motion to change.

The court found that the respondent had obtained an order for substituted service and had served the applicant via her daughter and Facebook Messenger.

The court concluded that the applicant was either ignoring the proceedings or willfully blind to them.

Applying the Mountain View Farms factors, the court held that the applicant failed to provide a plausible explanation for her default and did not establish an arguable case on the merits, as she had significant assets and the support had been paid for 19 years.

The motion to set aside the order was dismissed.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary the interim parenting schedule to a 2-2-3 schedule.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion to maintain the current schedule and requested an updated voice of the child report or the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court reviewed a previous voice of the child report which indicated the children struggled with short transitions.

Finding that the status quo was not in the children's best interests, the court granted the father's motion to implement a 2-2-3 schedule to minimize transitions and dismissed the mother's request for further assessments.

The applicant, the common-law spouse of the deceased, brought an application to challenge the validity of a handwritten will leaving a condominium to the respondent church.

The respondent brought a motion for directions challenging the applicant's standing and seeking to limit her to a dependant support claim.

The applicant moved to strike portions of the respondent's relief and hearsay evidence in affidavits.

The court held that it was premature to determine the applicant's standing to challenge the will until she commenced a dependant support claim, for which the court extended the limitation period.

The court also found the respondent's requests for directions premature and declined to strike the hearsay evidence at the motion stage, leaving it for the application judge.

The applicant, a non-profit housing corporation providing affordable and rent-geared-to-income housing, sought a declaration that its three properties were exempt from municipal taxation under section 3(1)12(iii) of the Assessment Act.

The respondents conceded the applicant served the poor but argued it was not 'organized for the relief of the poor' as required by the exemption.

Applying binding appellate authority, the court found that because the applicant's operations were fully funded by government subsidies and tenant rents, and its day-to-day management was outsourced to a for-profit entity, it did not provide relief through its own endeavors or funds.

The application was dismissed.