Michael R. Gibson

The plaintiff brought an action for malicious prosecution and negligent investigation against the police defendants after criminal charges against him were stayed by the Crown.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred because it was commenced more than two years after the stay was entered.

The plaintiff argued the limitation period did not begin until the one-year period for the Crown to recommence the stayed charges had expired.

The court held that a Crown stay constitutes a favourable termination of proceedings and the limitation clock begins to run on the day the stay is entered.

The action was dismissed as statute-barred.

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.

The deceased appointed her three children as joint estate trustees.

Due to extreme hostility and acrimony, the siblings were unable to administer the estate, which consisted primarily of a $66,000 bank account.

Two siblings brought an application to remove the third, who brought a cross-application to remove them.

The court found that the third sibling demonstrated palpable animus and made abusive statements and threats.

Applying the test for removal of a trustee, the court removed the third sibling and allowed the other two to continue as the sole estate trustees.

The offender was convicted of multiple counts of assault, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, and mischief against his intimate partner and her son over a 15-month period.

The assaults caused permanent and life-altering injuries to the partner, including facial disfigurement.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a suspended or minimal custodial sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence but also considered the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, and rehabilitative potential.

The offender was sentenced to a global custodial term of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation.

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 accused was charged with break and enter, robbery, uttering threats, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose following a home invasion.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including a cellphone belonging to the accused found at the scene, and eyewitness identification by the complainant.

The court rejected the eyewitness identification as unreliable but found the accused's explanation for his cellphone being at the scene to be implausible.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's testimony and found that the circumstantial evidence established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the break and enter, robbery, and weapons charges.

The accused was acquitted of uttering threats due to insufficient evidence regarding which perpetrator made the threat.

Following a seven-day family law trial where the applicant's motion to change custody was dismissed, the respondent sought her full costs.

The court considered the applicant's unreasonable behavior during the litigation and his highly abusive and contemptuous email sent to the court after the trial decision was released.

Emphasizing the need to sanction inappropriate behavior by self-represented litigants, the court awarded the respondent her full costs of $31,658.00.

The plaintiffs commenced an action for payment under a Cost Sharing Agreement 11 years after the defendant terminated its involvement.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to stay their own action in favour of arbitration, while the defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action as statute-barred.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding they could not stay their own proceeding under the Arbitration Act or the Courts of Justice Act.

The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the action was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period and that the plaintiffs were estopped by conduct and laches.

The plaintiff was shopping at the defendant's store when an employee accidentally discharged a fire extinguisher in his face.

The defendant admitted liability but disputed causation and damages, arguing the plaintiff's subsequent severe respiratory issues were a natural progression of a pre-existing illness.

The court applied the 'but for' test and the thin skull doctrine, finding that the incident caused the plaintiff to develop Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome (RADS).

The court awarded the plaintiff $225,000 in non-pecuniary damages, along with significant awards for past and future income loss, and subrogated claims.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate decision finding that post-accident business income from a family pharmacy should be deducted from the applicant's income replacement benefits (IRBs) under s. 7(3)(b) of the Statutory Accidents Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The applicant argued that 'earned' income required active engagement in the business.

The Divisional Court upheld the Director's Delegate's decision as reasonable, agreeing that a contextual interpretation of the SABS focuses on the profit and loss of the business rather than requiring active participation by the self-employed person.

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 81-year-old offender was convicted of aggravated assault and assault against his intimate partner, a 77-year-old woman, after knocking her down and striking her, causing a fractured patella and other injuries.

The court considered the offender's advanced age and diagnosed personality disorders, but found they did not preclude a custodial sentence given the severity of the domestic violence, his lack of remorse, and a high risk of future violence.

The offender was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment followed by three years of probation.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful motion regarding the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent, a self-represented litigant, did not provide costs submissions.

The court noted the respondent's highly inappropriate and abusive behaviour during the hearing, which required police presence to maintain security.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the principles regarding self-represented litigants, the court held that self-representation does not grant a licence for bad behaviour.

The court awarded the applicant substantial indemnity costs fixed at $10,800.

The Crown brought a s. 521 bail review application to vacate a release order made by a Justice of the Peace.

The Justice of the Peace had released the accused without a bail hearing because the original signed information was not physically present in court, despite a signed warrant being before the court.

The Superior Court held that the Justice of the Peace erred in principle and acted in excess of jurisdiction, as the existence of a signed warrant compels the conclusion that a signed information exists.

The release order was vacated.

Conducting a new bail hearing, the court released the accused on a $5,000 recognizance with a surety and conditions, noting the complainant had recanted.

The offender was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm and three counts of breach of probation after attacking his cellmate in a correctional centre over a dispute about food.

The victim suffered fractured ribs, cuts requiring stitches, and bruising.

The court found the custodial setting to be an aggravating factor, as the victim was defenceless in a confined space.

The offender was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment for the assault, less 2.5 months of pre-sentence credit, and concurrent 6-month sentences for the breaches, followed by three years of probation.

The applicants sought a declaration that their automobile insurer had a duty to defend them in a personal injury action arising from an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) accident.

The insurer denied coverage, arguing the ATV was an off-road vehicle driven on private property and not an automobile under the Insurance Act.

The court found that the underlying statement of claim contained alternative allegations that the applicants owned the ATV but were not occupiers of the property where the accident occurred.

If proven, these facts would mean the ATV was a newly acquired automobile covered by the policy.

The court granted the application, holding the insurer had a duty to defend.

The applicants sought a declaration that their default judgment against the respondent survived his bankruptcy discharge under s. 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The judgment arose after the respondent's real estate lawyer mistakenly paid him sale proceeds that were supposed to be held in trust to discharge a mortgage.

The respondent misappropriated the funds, spent them on personal items, and later declared bankruptcy without listing the applicants as creditors.

The court granted the application, finding that the respondent acted in a fiduciary capacity regarding the mistakenly received trust funds and that his misappropriation meant the debt survived his bankruptcy.

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.

The accused, a 53-year-old member of the Couchiching First Nation, pleaded guilty to mischief, possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, breach of undertaking by possessing a weapon, and assault.

The offences arose from two incidents: first, damage to a kitchen countertop and threats with a baseball bat during a confrontation with his common-law partner; second, a barricaded situation involving a loaded shotgun during a suicidal crisis.

The court imposed a restorative sentence emphasizing Gladue principles, recognizing the intergenerational trauma stemming from residential schools and the unique circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.