Michael N. Varpio

The moving party sought leave to appeal the orders of Associate Justice Graham dated March 28, 2022, and May 24, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $3,000.

The offender pleaded guilty to firearm offences after discharging a rifle outside her brother's residence during a domestic dispute with her ex-partner.

The court considered the offender's Indigenous background and the Gladue factors, noting her commitment to rehabilitation while in custody.

Given the Crown's case was not overwhelming, the court placed significant weight on the guilty plea as an expression of remorse.

The offender was sentenced to time served (648 days enhanced credit) plus one day, followed by two years of probation.

The plaintiff, a band councilor, sued the defendants for defamation based on a Censure Motion passed by the band council.

The Censure Motion stated that the plaintiff's social media post, which claimed the council had 'seen nothing' regarding financial statements and a budget for a year, was false and misleading.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the defence of justification.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding no genuine issue for trial because the 'sting' of the Censure Motion was substantially true, as the plaintiff had indeed been present when financial statements and a budget were presented.

The applicant, operator of Sunset Manor long-term care home, sought judicial review of a Director's decision ordering the home to cease admitting new residents due to a risk of harm.

The applicant argued the decision was tainted by a reasonable apprehension of bias because one of the inspectors was a former employee, that it was denied procedural fairness, and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, that the procedural fairness owed was met, and that the Director's decision was reasonable and justified based on a history of non-compliance.

The appellant held an aggregate licence on property owned by the respondent.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry decided to transfer the licence to the property owner.

The appellant challenged this at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, arguing it should receive financial compensation.

The Tribunal ruled on a preliminary motion that it lacked jurisdiction to consider financial compensation.

The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as premature, finding that without a full factual record and substantive decision from the Tribunal, it could not properly review the jurisdictional and policy findings.

The Crown brought an application under s. 714.2 of the Criminal Code to permit the complainant in a sexual assault trial to testify via videoconference from California.

The defence opposed the application, arguing it would be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice due to the Crown's delay in notifying the complainant and the loss of in-person cross-examination.

The court granted the application, finding that the mandatory language of s. 714.2 applied since the witness was outside Canada, and the defence's concerns did not amount to a contravention of fundamental justice.

Following a two-week family law trial regarding parenting time, decision-making, and support, the applicant father sought $25,000 in costs, arguing he was largely successful.

The respondent mother sought a no-costs order, arguing success was divided.

The court reviewed the trial outcomes, noting the father achieved increased parenting time and imputed income to the mother, while the mother successfully defended against joint decision-making and week-about parenting.

Finding that success was divided and the mother had a reasonable evidentiary basis to litigate certain issues, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The accused, an Indigenous man, was found guilty of sexually assaulting his intimate partner.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence, while the accused sought three years.

The court considered the severe aggravating factors, including the frequency of the assaults and the victim's vulnerability, alongside the mitigating factors of the accused's limited record and mental health issues.

Applying Gladue principles, the court acknowledged the accused's impoverished upbringing and systemic background factors but found that the serious nature of the offence required a significant penitentiary term.

The accused was sentenced to four years in custody.

The appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) that denied her motion to remove the respondent insurer's lawyer for an alleged conflict of interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The Court held that section 11 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999 only permits appeals from final decisions, not interlocutory ones.

In doing so, the Court declined to follow recent Divisional Court decisions that suggested the Court had discretion to hear interlocutory appeals in exceptional circumstances, reaffirming older jurisprudence that statutory appeal rights must be strictly construed.

The appellant appealed an order discharging a Claim for Lien and vacating a Certificate of Action registered against a property.

The motions judge had found that the appellant was a partner in the property development, making him an 'owner' under the Construction Lien Act rather than a 'contractor', and therefore ineligible to register a lien against his own property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the test for partnership and relied on relevant evidence.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Daley J. dated April 12, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $6,500.

The offender, an Indigenous man, was found guilty of pointing a firearm, assault, assault with a weapon, and mischief to property against his spouse.

The Crown sought an upper reformatory sentence, while the offender sought a conditional sentence based on Gladue factors and his rehabilitative efforts.

The court weighed the need for denunciation and deterrence for spousal abuse involving firearms against the offender's unique background, intergenerational trauma from residential schools, and exceptional progress in counselling.

The court concluded that a combination of punitive and restorative objectives could be met with a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation.

The Father applied for the child to reside with him in Sault Ste.

Marie, Ontario, while the Mother sought to relocate with the child to Schaumburg, Illinois, and have decision-making authority.

The court, applying the amended Divorce Act, found it in the child's best interests to reside permanently with the Mother in Schaumburg, granting her exclusive decision-making authority.

The Father was granted a robust parenting schedule to maintain contact.

The court emphasized the Mother's primary caregiver role and attentiveness versus the Father's relative detachment, while also acknowledging the importance of the child's relationship with his half-sibling.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final order, seeking joint decision-making, week-about parenting time, imputation of income to the respondent mother, and termination of spousal support and child support for their 21-year-old daughter.

The court maintained the mother's sole decision-making authority but increased the father's parenting time to three weekends per month to provide more structure for the boys.

The court imputed a full-time minimum wage income to the mother and ordered spousal support to terminate in September 2023.

The court found the 21-year-old daughter remained a child of the marriage due to her ADHD and pursuit of post-secondary education, despite her estrangement from the father.

Section 7 expenses for extracurricular activities were capped at $1,500 per year.

The Crown applied under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for an order permitting the complainant to testify via CCTV and with the assistance of a support person in an upcoming jury trial for sexual assault.

The complainant testified to severe anxiety and an inability to provide a full account if testifying in person due to the accused's presence.

The court granted the application, finding that the order would facilitate a full and candid account, balancing the accused's right to confrontation with society's interest in truth-seeking and encouraging the reporting of offences.

This criminal trial concerned allegations of sexual assault and controlling behaviour by the accused against the complainant, who was a minor (16/17) at the time of the incidents.

The complainant alleged multiple non-consensual sexual acts, including vaginal, anal, and oral assaults, as well as choking, occurring within an otherwise romantic relationship.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible despite its scattered presentation and incremental disclosure, attributing these to her youth, mental health issues, and the abusive nature of the relationship.

The accused's testimony was entirely rejected due to numerous inconsistencies, fantastical claims, and attempts to tailor his evidence.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

The accused brought an application to sever an animal cruelty charge from an indictment that also included two counts of sexual assault and one count of unlawfully possessing a firearm.

The accused argued that the presence of the animal cruelty charge could cause prejudice.

The court granted the severance, finding that the emotionally powerful evidence related to the animal cruelty, combined with the complexity of the numerous sexual assault allegations, created a significant risk of the jury engaging in forbidden propensity reasoning.

This risk was deemed to outweigh the public interest in a single trial, especially given the lack of a strong nexus between the animal cruelty and sexual assault counts.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.