Michael R. Gibson

This case involves competing interim parenting motions in a high-conflict family litigation.

The Respondent Mother unilaterally relocated with the child from Hamilton to Woodbridge, alleging family violence.

The Applicant Father sought the child's return to Hamilton and joint decision-making, denying abuse.

The court, facing conflicting affidavit evidence and a young child, adjourned the Applicant Father's motion until a s.30 assessment was completed.

The court ordered that the child reside primarily with the Respondent Mother and granted the Applicant Father supervised parenting time, adjusting the schedule to reduce transit time.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests, the difficulty of interim mobility motions, and the need for caution with conflicting affidavit evidence.

The plaintiff, Debt Aid Consulting Inc., a debt relief marketing company, sued the defendant, Financial Rescue LLC, a competitor, alleging breaches of the Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act, the Business Names Act, and the Competition Act, and tortious interference with economic relations.

The plaintiff sought declarations that the defendant was not entitled to conduct business or advertise in Canada, and damages for lost business and increased advertising costs.

The court found that the defendant's activities were marketing services and did not fall within the definitions of a "collection agency" or "debt settlement service" under the CDSSA.

The court also found no evidence of false or misleading representations under the Competition Act or the elements required for intentional interference with economic relations.

The action was dismissed with costs.

This endorsement addresses a motion by the Applicant to re-open a family law trial to introduce fresh evidence regarding the Respondent's alleged property ownership in Bangladesh, and a determination of costs for the original trial.

The court dismissed the motion to re-open, finding it was brought too late and the proposed evidence was not diligently adduced, which would prejudice the Respondent and necessitate re-doing the trial.

Despite dismissing the motion, the court awarded the Applicant $50,000 in costs, citing the Respondent's litigation misconduct during the trial, including presenting unreliable and potentially fraudulent evidence.

The applicant, Shelley Ottele, initiated an application challenging the validity of Powers of Attorney signed by her deceased father, Leo Racine, appointing Aimy Racine, and sought damages for fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty.

This endorsement addresses two motions: the applicant's motion to stay proceedings pending an appeal, and the respondent Aimy Racine's motion for security for costs.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion to stay, finding no persuasive basis.

The court granted the respondent's motion for security for costs, finding good reason to believe the applicant's underlying application was frivolous and vexatious and that she had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs, as required by Rule 56.01(1)(e).

The applicant was ordered to pay $75,000 as security for costs and $25,253.24 in costs for the motion.

The plaintiff commenced an action with a Statement of Claim making various outlandish allegations of criminal conduct against a police officer and police services.

The defendants, Waterloo Regional Police Service and David Clark, requested an order dismissing the action under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found the pleadings unintelligible, implausible, and a continuation of harassment, dismissing the action as clearly abusive and vexatious.

This is a sentencing decision for Hesham Aly, who was found guilty by a jury of fraudulent personation with intent to cause disadvantage, contrary to s. 403(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

Aly, a former social worker, impersonated two former colleagues and disclosed confidential client information from social service agencies to various organizations and media outlets, motivated by revenge after his termination and a human rights complaint.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including the planned and deliberate nature of the acts, malice, sophistication, significant impact on victims and organizations, breach of trust, and betrayal of professional standards.

Aly absconded before sentencing.

The court sentenced Aly to 4 years imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the egregious breach of trust and harm caused to vulnerable persons and community institutions.

S.G. was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

The victim, A.B., was the common-law partner of S.G.'s son, and S.G. had groomed her through repeated massages, culminating in penetrative sexual assault.

The court found that S.G. intentionally inserted his penis into A.B.'s vagina without consent and engaged in thrusting.

Aggravating factors included a breach of trust, grooming of a vulnerable victim, significant impact on the victim, and a prior sexual assault conviction.

Mitigating factors were few, primarily an expression of remorse.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, sentencing S.G. to 4 years imprisonment, along with a DNA order, a lifetime Sex Offender Information Registration Act order, a communication abstention order, and a weapons prohibition order.

This family law trial addressed multiple issues arising from a divorce, including the validity of a foreign divorce, ownership of foreign property, equalization of net family property (NFP), adjustments to NFP for asset depletion, child and spousal support arrears, and claims for occupation rent and post-separation adjustments for home expenses.

The court found the foreign divorce invalid due to lack of real and substantial connection to Bangladesh, and dismissed claims regarding foreign property due to unreliable and potentially fraudulent evidence from both parties.

The court adjusted NFP by adding back assets intentionally depleted by the respondent prior to separation.

Child and spousal support arrears were fixed, and ongoing spousal support was ordered.

The respondent's claims for occupation rent and post-separation adjustments for home expenses were dismissed.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay in bringing the matter to trial.

The total delay from arrest to the scheduled end of trial was 1029 days, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court analyzed the delay, attributing significant periods to the defence due to issues like obtaining and changing counsel.

Additionally, the court recognized the COVID-19 pandemic as a discrete exceptional circumstance, deducting the associated delays.

After accounting for defence-attributable and exceptional delays, the net delay fell substantially below the Jordan ceiling.

Consequently, the court found no infringement of the applicant's right to be tried within a reasonable time and dismissed the application for a stay.

The parties, married in 2005 and separated in 2018, proceeded to trial to resolve issues of divorce, child support, parenting orders, and equalization of net family property.

The case involved three children, two of whom were teenagers with mental health challenges who expressed preferences for autonomy in parenting time.

The court addressed the applicant father's request for shared decision-making and parenting time for all children, the respondent mother's request for spousal support, and the determination of child support.

The court ordered shared decision-making responsibility for all children, primary residence with the mother, and granted the older children autonomy regarding time with the father.

The youngest child's week-about schedule continued, with a request for an updated Voice of the Child Report.

Child support was maintained at the previously imputed income level, and spousal support was denied due to insufficient evidentiary support.

The defendants brought a motion seeking joinder of three separate actions initiated by the plaintiff, 2209509 Ontario Inc. operating as Norfolk Fairway Estates, concerning claims for "extras" on new home constructions.

They also sought an order for security for costs.

The plaintiff opposed both requests.

The court granted the joinder, finding common questions of law and fact across the actions and that joinder would promote the convenient administration of justice.

The court also granted the order for security for costs, determining that the plaintiff, an amalgamated corporation, had not sufficiently demonstrated it possessed exigible assets in Ontario to cover potential costs.

The applicant sought to add two non-parties, Francis Montour and Greg Hill, to a family law proceeding and compel their questioning, asserting their relevance to a trust claim over "on reserve" properties and a tobacco farming business.

The respondent and proposed added parties opposed.

The court, applying Family Law Rules 7(5) and 20(5), found that the dispute between the primary parties could be resolved without adding the non-parties and that the motion for questioning was premature as the applicant had not exhausted other disclosure methods.

The applicant's motion was dismissed.

Nieltech Services Ltd., a subcontractor, brought a motion for summary judgment against Rosa Nudo-Perras, a director of Wasero Construction (1991) Ltd., for breach of trust under the Construction Act.

Nieltech claimed $45,757.26 for unpaid services.

Wasero and another director had declared bankruptcy, and Nudo failed to provide a proper accounting of trust funds.

The court found that Nieltech discharged its onus to prove a trust and non-payment, and Nudo failed to discharge her onus to account for the funds.

The court determined there was no genuine issue for trial and granted summary judgment against Nudo, finding her personally liable for the breach of trust.

G.S. was found guilty by a jury of five sexual offences against D.A., committed between 1998 and 2001 when D.A. was 13-16 years old.

The offences involved sexual intercourse and a breach of trust, as G.S. was D.A.'s workplace supervisor and family friend.

The court, applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the inherent wrongfulness and profound harm of sexual offences against children.

Despite G.S. having no prior criminal record and no remorse, the court imposed a significant penitentiary sentence of 5.5 years for two counts of sexual assault, to be served concurrently, and conditionally stayed other convictions.

Ancillary orders included DNA sample, SOIRA registration for life, lifetime prohibitions on attending places frequented by children, and contact prohibitions.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from an application where the Applicant successfully set aside a default judgment in a foreclosure action, and a subsequent unsuccessful motion by one of the Respondents to vary that order based on new evidence.

The Applicant sought full indemnity costs against one respondent and its director, and partial indemnity from another.

The court assessed the costs based on factors under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Courts of Justice Act, declining to pierce the corporate veil to award costs against a non-party director.

The court awarded the Applicant $50,000 in costs for the original application, apportioned between two respondents, and an additional $7,500 for the motion to vary, payable by one respondent.

The plaintiff, Ryan Dean, a self-represented litigant, sought $25 million in damages against numerous defendants, including the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC) and several registered immigration consultants (Complainant Defendants), following his removal from the ICCRC board of directors.

The Complainant Defendants moved to strike Dean's claim for unlawful means conspiracy, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court found that Dean failed to plead any unlawful conduct by the Complainant Defendants, as filing complaints with a regulator is a lawful act and not unlawful per se.

The claim also lacked essential elements of conspiracy, such as a clear agreement and purpose.

The court dismissed Dean's claim against the Complainant Defendants and denied leave to amend, as any new cause of action would be time-barred.

Anand Dindyal was charged with 11 counts, including assault, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and mischief, primarily against Jennifer Hamp and one count against Larz Kovacevic.

The trial proceeded as a judge-alone trial.

The court assessed the credibility of witnesses, applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework.

The complainant, Jennifer Hamp, was found credible, while Dindyal's testimony was deemed contrived and implausible.

The court found Dindyal guilty on 10 of the 11 counts, dismissing one count of assault due to reasonable doubt regarding intentional contact.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to strike the respondent's pleadings for his willful non-compliance with a prior child support order and to vary the child support amount.

The respondent had unilaterally reduced payments and failed to file materials for the motion, requesting an adjournment which was denied.

The court found the respondent's conduct to be willful, flagrant, and calculated disobedience, intended to prolong litigation and deprive the children of support.

The court struck the respondent's pleadings and increased the child support amount based on the current custody arrangement and the respondent's substantial income.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment regarding the loss of a coin collection she entrusted to the defendant for appraisal.

The court found the defendant, a gratuitous bailee, negligent for losing the coins, as he could not recall their location or provide a reasonable explanation for their loss.

Summary judgment was granted on the issue of liability, with the quantum of damages to be determined at a subsequent trial.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) applied for rectification of a mortgage registered solely against Alniz Rehmtulla, despite the intention for it to be registered against both Alniz and Azra Rehmtulla, who jointly owned the property.

The Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC), an execution creditor of both Rehmtullas, opposed the rectification, arguing it was not available and was statute-barred by the Limitations Act.

The court found that the registration error was due to inadvertence and that the Land Titles Act provided wide statutory discretion for rectification.

The court rejected BDC's arguments, including the limitations period defense, and granted TD's request for rectification, finding it just to correct the mutual mistake and prevent BDC from unfairly benefiting from the error.