Michael R. Gibson

A self-represented plaintiff sought damages for financial losses allegedly caused by uncertainty regarding his corporation's land ownership due to an unresolved Indigenous land claim by Six Nations against Canada and Ontario.

The defendants brought cross-motions to strike the claim.

The court dismissed the action on multiple grounds: the proceeding was a nullity against Ontario due to failure to provide the mandatory 60-day notice required by the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019; the claim was plainly and obviously statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002; and the plaintiff failed to establish a cognizable cause of action in negligence or breach of fiduciary duty against either defendant.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's motion to amend the pleadings to add corporate plaintiffs.

The applicant sought to vary a forfeiture order made by consent on July 28, 2023, requesting the return of replica firearms, deactivated firearms, and an antique revolver, and seeking permission for a licensed gunsmith to examine seized property.

The applicant claimed material change in circumstances based on alleged mistakes by police in cataloging firearms.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter as it constituted an attempt to re-launch a previously disposed appeal of a consent order.

The court emphasized the principle of finality and found no compelling case of miscarriage of justice warranting reopening.

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo sought a declaration that its Site-Specific By-Law Number 25-021 regulating 100 Victoria Street North in Kitchener complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The by-law prohibits temporary structures and sheltering on the property, with a December 1, 2025 deadline for vacant possession to facilitate construction of the Kitchener Central Transit Hub.

Persons Unknown and to be Ascertained, chronically homeless individuals sheltering at the encampment, sought an interlocutory injunction restraining enforcement of the by-law pending determination of their Charter claims.

The court granted the injunction, finding serious issues to be tried regarding violations of section 7 Charter rights (life, liberty, and security of the person) and potential illegality under the Municipal Act, 2001, irreparable harm to vulnerable homeless persons, and balance of convenience favoring the injunction.

The court considered whether Aviva Insurance Company of Canada was required to defend or indemnify Udo Haan under a homeowner’s policy after Haan, found not criminally responsible for killing his wife and causing an explosion that damaged neighbouring homes, was sued by neighbours.

The court found that Haan’s actions were both intentional and criminal, triggering the policy’s exclusion clause.

As a result, Aviva had no duty to defend or indemnify Haan in the civil actions brought by his neighbours.

The court dismissed Milad Babadi’s motion for judicial recusal and related relief as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The decision reviews the strong presumption of judicial impartiality, the proper remedy of appeal, and the hallmarks of vexatious litigation.

The court found Mr. Babadi’s conduct and submissions to be a textbook example of vexatious litigation and stayed his motion, prohibiting further motions without leave.

The decision addresses an application by Edwin Capehart to exclude evidence on the basis of alleged violations of his Charter rights, specifically regarding a warrantless download of cellphone data and the validity of two search warrants.

The court finds a breach of s. 8 of the Charter due to police delay in seeking a warrant after a warrantless download, but ultimately admits the evidence after a Grant analysis.

The court finds Capehart guilty on most counts, including firearms and drug offences, and not guilty on two counts.

The applicant, Heather Ann Hugginson, sought a declaration that a $400,000 inter vivos gift allegedly given by the deceased, Glenn Poole, to the respondent, Sandra Hugginson, was invalid and that the funds should be returned to the estate.

The court found that Sandra failed to prove Glenn’s specific intent to make the gift or that he delivered the gift before his death.

The court also rejected the argument that the gift was perfected when Sandra became estate trustee, finding the rule in Strong v. Bird did not apply.

The application was granted and Sandra was ordered to return the $400,000 to the estate.

The City of Waterloo sought and was granted interlocutory statutory and quia timet injunctions to restrain "persons unknown" from violating the City's Nuisance Party By-law in connection with anticipated unsanctioned St. Patrick’s Day street parties.

The court found a clear breach of the by-law, significant unrecoverable public costs, and a high probability of irreparable harm.

The decision reviews the legal standards for statutory and quia timet injunctions, the public interest in enforcement, and the limited impact on Charter rights.

This decision concerns an application by Kadejah Moore for the return of her children from Croatia under the Hague Convention and the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The court found that the children were wrongfully removed from Ontario by their father, Mehmed Mujic, and ordered their immediate return.

The decision reviews the legal framework for international child abduction, the concept of habitual residence, and the use of chasing orders and letters rogatory in international family law.

The court considered whether to dismiss the Schembri Action and strike Schembri’s defence in the Way Action due to Schembri’s repeated, prolonged, and intentional failure to comply with documentary disclosure obligations, including undertakings and multiple court orders.

The court found Schembri’s conduct deliberate and unjustified, resulting in significant delay and prejudice.

Applying the principles from Falcon Lumber and related appellate authorities, the court held that the exceptional remedy of dismissal and striking pleadings was proportionate and necessary to uphold the integrity of the justice system.

R.D. was found guilty by a jury of three counts of sexual assault, three counts of sexual interference, and one count of invitation to sexual touching against N.W., a young child and his de facto stepdaughter.

The court considered aggravating factors including abuse of trust, the victim's young age (6-7), multiple instances of abuse, and the offender's prior criminal record.

R.D. denied the offences and expressed no remorse.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, and guided by R. v. Friesen, the court imposed a global sentence of 5.5 years imprisonment, reduced to an effective sentence of 4 years after accounting for pre-sentence custody credits, including a substantial Duncan credit for harsh conditions at Maplehurst Correctional Complex.

Ancillary orders were also imposed.

The Crown appealed a conditional discharge sentence imposed on the respondent for distributing intimate images and breach of a release order.

The Crown argued the sentencing judge erred by imposing a probation order akin to a conditional sentence, failing to adequately address denunciation and deterrence, and concluding the discharge was not contrary to public interest.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge did not err in principle or impose an unfit sentence, emphasizing the individualized nature of sentencing and the deference owed to the sentencing judge's discretion.

The applicant, a condominium developer, sought declarations that the respondent purchaser breached an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) by failing to close, that the agreement was terminated, and that the deposits paid by the respondent were forfeited.

The respondent argued misrepresentation, claiming the property was not a new pre-construction unit as understood, but an already constructed and occupied model suite.

The court found the respondent in breach of the APS, noting inconsistencies in the respondent's sworn affidavits regarding the agreement's validity.

The court granted the applicant's request, ordering the forfeiture and disbursement of the deposits to the applicant.

The Crown appealed a conditional discharge sentence imposed on the respondent for distributing intimate images of his former partner, arguing the sentence was unfit, akin to a disguised conditional sentence, and failed to adequately address denunciation and deterrence.

The Superior Court of Justice, sitting as a summary conviction appeal court, dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge did not err in principle or law, and the sentence was not demonstrably unfit, emphasizing the deference owed to sentencing judges and the individualized nature of sentencing.

The respondent, Asif Qadar, successfully moved to dismiss an application brought by Jose Zepeda.

Qadar argued Zepeda lacked legal capacity and improperly sought corporate remedies in a personal capacity, circumventing derivative action requirements under the Business Corporations Act.

The court found that most of the relief sought by Zepeda, despite being framed as oppression, was properly for the corporation, not Zepeda personally.

Consequently, the application was dismissed due to procedural impropriety and Zepeda's lack of capacity to pursue corporate claims in a personal action.

The appellant, William Simpson, appealed his convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault.

He argued that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny, misapplied the guidance in R. v. W.(D.), and erred by relying on speculation and impermissible stereotypes.

The appellant also sought to admit fresh evidence from a clinical psychiatrist regarding his mental acuity at the time of trial.

The court dismissed the fresh evidence application, finding it lacked cogency, due diligence, and credibility.

On the merits of the appeal, the court found no error in the trial judge's W.(D.) analysis, no s.276 or Seaboyer error, and no erroneous reliance on common-sense assumptions.

The court affirmed that the trial judge's credibility assessment was rooted in the evidence and entitled to deference.

The appeal was dismissed.

This decision addresses costs in an estate dispute where the Applicant sought enforcement of Arbitration Orders.

The court had previously ruled in favour of the Applicant, enforcing Minutes of Settlement as amended by an Arbitrator's Orders.

The Applicant requested full indemnity costs, alleging the Respondent's conduct was vexatious, inappropriate, obstructionist, and involved "scorched earth litigation tactics" and "abusive tactics." The Respondent, self-represented, did not address the quantum but continued to criticize the Applicant and her counsel.

The court found the Applicant entirely successful and the Respondent's conduct egregious, warranting full indemnity costs.

The Respondent was ordered to personally pay $19,930.26 in costs, not from the Estate.

The plaintiff, an electrical contractor, sued the defendants for breach of a time and materials contract for electrical services provided to a grocery store.

The central issues included the interpretation of the contract, the identification of the proper contracting parties given that "Dutchies Fresh Food Market" was a non-existent entity, the amount of unpaid invoices, and a claim for punitive damages.

The court found the individual defendant personally liable, jointly with specific corporate entities, for contracting on behalf of a non-existent corporation.

The court awarded the full amount of the unpaid invoices, accepting the plaintiff's evidence regarding time and materials, including overtime, breaks, and material costs.

However, the claim for punitive damages was denied, as the defendants' conduct, while uncooperative, did not meet the high threshold of malicious, oppressive, or high-handed behavior required for such an award.

This is a construction lien action and counterclaim arising from a fixed-price drywall contract.

The plaintiffs, Nikom Construction Inc. (contractor) and Invoice Payment System Corporation (factoring company), sued for unpaid invoices.

The defendant, The Block Inc. (owner), counterclaimed for damages due to alleged contract breaches, deficiencies, and abandonment by Nikom.

The court found that Nikom repudiated the contract by failing to provide adequate manpower and supervision, and by having significant deficiencies, rather than The Block repudiating by late payments.

The court also ruled that the "indoor management rule" did not bind The Block to unauthorized invoice approvals.

Consequently, the plaintiffs' action was dismissed, their liens discharged, and The Block's counterclaim for costs to complete and correct Nikom's work was granted in part, with the plaintiffs ordered to pay $325,824.41 plus pre-judgment interest.