Mohan D. Sharma

The respondent brought a motion seeking declarations that he had complied with a prior disclosure order and that no further monetary penalties were owing.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought an adjournment, which was denied.

The court found that the respondent had made extraordinary efforts to comply with the voluminous disclosure requests and had substantially complied by July 18, 2022.

The court determined that the respondent had overpaid the accrued penalties and ordered the applicant to reimburse him $29,300 USD.

Following a judge-alone trial resulting in convictions for trafficking in a controlled substance (cocaine), possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and possession of a firearm while prohibited by court order, the court imposed sentence.

The offender had a prior record including a 2008 drug trafficking conviction and two weapons prohibition orders in force.

The court received an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment addressing systemic anti-Black racism and the offender's disadvantaged upbringing in a marginalized community.

Despite finding those systemic factors attenuated the offender's moral blameworthiness to some degree, the court rejected a conditional sentence, finding insufficient evidence of rehabilitative efforts since the last conviction and that the offender had demonstrated a complete disregard for prior court orders.

The court imposed a total custodial sentence of four years and 160 days, reflecting consecutive terms for the firearm, prohibition breach, and trafficking offences, with credits for pre-sentence custody, bail restrictions, and a Charter breach relating to the right to counsel.

The accused was charged with robbery after stealing a vehicle at gunpoint from an innocent family in a mall parking lot.

The accused claimed he acted in self-defence, arguing he stole the vehicle to escape after being attacked during a drug deal and firing his own handgun.

The court found that while the accused reasonably believed a threat of force was being used against him and acted for a defensive purpose, his response of robbing innocent bystanders at gunpoint was not reasonable in the circumstances.

The accused's reckless role in creating the dangerous situation by bringing a loaded handgun to a drug deal weighed heavily against the reasonableness of his actions.

The accused was found guilty of robbery.

Following a jury trial, the accused was found guilty of reckless discharge of a firearm and aggravated assault, but acquitted of firearm possession charges.

The sentencing judge was required to make factual findings under s. 724(2) of the Criminal Code for sentencing and an impending constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum sentence.

Applying the Ferguson principles, the court found the accused credible and accepted that he snatched the gun from the victim in self-defence, was pursued by the victim, and fired at the ground out of a legitimate fear for his life.

The applicant brought a Garofoli application seeking to quash a search warrant issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to exclude evidence pursuant to sections 8 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant was charged with possession of a loaded and prohibited firearm, possession of a prohibited firearm, and possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown conceded that the redacted Information to Obtain could not support the authorization and sought to have the court review the unredacted material.

The court found that the Information to Obtain contained sufficient information upon which the issuing justice could have authorized the search, and therefore no section 8 Charter breach occurred.

The application was dismissed.

The court considered an application by the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of France for the extradition of Prasanna Nallalingam to stand trial in France for murder and attempted murder.

The court found that a properly instructed jury could conclude that Nallalingam possessed the requisite mens rea for manslaughter and assault causing bodily harm, based on circumstantial evidence of his planning, provision of weapons, and command of the attack.

The committal order was granted under the Extradition Act.

This costs decision follows a complex family law trial between Barbara Lang-Newlands and Ian Newlands.

The court reviews the parties’ conduct, settlement offers, and relative success on issues, ultimately awarding the applicant, Barbara, $2,800,000 in costs.

The decision details the application of the Family Law Rules regarding offers to settle, the reasonableness of the parties’ behaviour, and the principles guiding costs awards in family law litigation.

The decision concerns the prosecution of Brandon Caleb for trafficking in a controlled substance, possession of a loaded firearm, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including intercepted communications, expert testimony, and physical evidence, established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Caleb trafficked in cocaine and possessed a loaded firearm at his residence.

The court rejected alternative explanations and found the evidence did not support reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

The accused, Graham McLean, was acquitted of sexual assault following a judge-alone trial.

The case turned on whether the complainant, KA, consented to sexual intercourse on July 14, 2016.

The court found Mr. McLean’s evidence credible and reliable, supported by objective evidence such as photographs and weather data.

The complainant’s evidence was found to have inconsistencies and did not align with objective facts, raising reasonable doubt as to her reliability.

The court concluded that the Crown had not proven lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted Mr. McLean.

The respondent father brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce unsigned Minutes of Settlement purportedly reached at a settlement conference.

The applicant mother opposed, arguing no binding agreement was reached until the Minutes were signed.

The court found that while the parties had agreed on the substantive terms, the objective evidence demonstrated that the execution of the formal Minutes was an essential procedural term necessary for the formation of the contract.

As the Minutes were never executed due to a disagreement over a specific clause, there was a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the respondent was granted leave to bring a motion for expanded parenting time.

The applicant father sought primary weekday parenting time and interim child support for the parties' two children.

The respondent mother cross-moved for dismissal, declaratory orders for torts of family violence and battered women's syndrome, supervised visits for the father, sole decision-making, and child support.

The court dismissed the respondent's tort claims, affirming no such torts exist in Ontario.

The court criticized the respondent's motion materials for non-compliance with practice directions.

The court found both parties engaged in family violence: the respondent through emotional/psychological abuse by withholding children and misusing police contact, and the applicant through financial abuse by not paying support and attempting to divert child benefits.

The court ordered a shared parenting schedule, rejecting the father's request for primary weekday care and the mother's request for supervised visits and sole decision-making.

Interim child support was ordered, with the applicant paying retroactive and ongoing set-off support based on imputed incomes.

Detailed communication and transition orders were also made, superseding criminal undertaking conditions.

This trial addressed two issues following an unmarried couple's separation: the Applicant's claim for equitable rectification of a contract concerning his equity interest in a jointly-owned home, and his entitlement to spousal support.

The court dismissed the rectification claim, finding no common intention to grant the Applicant an equity interest beyond the return of his mortgage payments.

However, the court found the parties cohabited from August 2014 to February 2022, establishing the Applicant as a "spouse" under the Family Law Act.

Consequently, the court granted the Applicant non-compensatory spousal support of $10,912 per month for 66 months, retroactive to March 1, 2022.

The applicant mother brought a short motion to relocate with the parties' two children from Toronto to Winnipeg.

The respondent father sought an adjournment to a long motion to allow for cross-examination on the affidavits, citing credibility issues regarding parenting time and the mother's failure to comply with a prior scheduling order.

The court granted the adjournment, finding that procedural fairness required cross-examination given the permanent implications of relocation.

Despite being successful, the father was denied costs because his affidavit failed to comply with the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction by including legal arguments and lacking double-spacing.

The parties separated after a 32-year marriage.

The applicant's father had established a highly successful business.

Before the marriage, the father settled a trust holding shares in the business for the applicant.

During the marriage, the applicant received the shares and later participated in an estate freeze, transferring the shares to a holding company in exchange for preferred shares, while a new trust (the NFT) acquired the common shares.

The applicant and her children were discretionary beneficiaries of the NFT.

The main issue was whether the applicant's interest in the NFT was property subject to equalization, and if so, whether it was excluded as a gift.

The court found the interest was property, but bound by the Court of Appeal's decision in Shinder v. Shinder, held it was an excluded gift.

The court also determined the valuation of various assets, dismissed the respondent's unjust enrichment claim to a cottage, and ordered the applicant to pay an equalization payment of $1.18M and needs-based spousal support of $25,649 per month.

The court issued a costs endorsement declining to order personal costs against the respondent's former counsel for non-compliance with the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction for Family Proceedings, specifically regarding the double-spacing requirement in a factum.

The judge found that existing rules (Family Law Rules R. 24(9) and Rules of Civil Procedure R. 57.07(1)) were insufficient to address such breaches, as they require a finding of costs run up without reasonable cause or wasted, which was not the harm in this case.

While acknowledging the non-compliance undermined court authority and interfered with the administration of justice, it was not deemed "serious" enough to warrant personal costs under the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The judge highlighted a persistent problem without sufficient remedial authority and recommended rule amendments to allow courts to hold lawyers accountable for obvious breaches of practice directions.

The applicant sought child and spousal support, arguing the respondent's income should be imputed to $140,000 despite his receipt of ODSP benefits.

She also sought an equalization payment, alleging the respondent hid assets including silver bars, equipment, and cars, and claimed an interest in a property owned by the respondent's parents.

The court found the respondent was unable to work due to physical and mental health conditions and fixed his income at his ODSP amount, resulting in no support payable.

The court dismissed the equalization claims, finding the applicant failed to prove the existence of the hidden assets and could not assert a trust claim against the respondent's parents for equalization purposes.

The Applicant sought extensive financial disclosure from the Respondent, who brought a cross-motion to dismiss, strike a paragraph, and impose disclosure restrictions, including a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).

The court criticized both parties' counsel for poor advocacy and lack of cooperation, particularly the Applicant's voluminous and unfocused material.

The court ordered specific, limited disclosure from the Respondent, contingent on the Applicant signing an NDA for confidential third-party information.

The Respondent's request to strike a paragraph containing settlement privileged discussions was granted.

Costs were awarded to the Respondent due to the Applicant's unreasonable positions and poorly prepared motion materials.

The applicant sought an order for her expert, Paul Mandel, to provide testimony at trial regarding the respondent's income and business valuation, despite a conflict of interest arising from Mandel joining MNP LLP, a firm that had previously provided services to the respondent.

The respondent opposed, arguing a conflict impacting Mandel's independence.

The court granted the applicant's motion, ordering Mandel to testify, limiting his scope to his original report.

The court found no actual conflict of interest that would preclude Mandel's testimony, distinguishing expert witnesses from lawyers regarding conflict rules, and emphasizing the expert's duty of impartiality.

Costs were awarded to the applicant, payable by both the respondent and MNP LLP.

The respondent, Paul Wynn, brought a motion to bifurcate two key issues in a complex family law proceeding: the enforceability of a marriage contract and the determination of Paul's beneficial interest in significant family properties and businesses, including bare trust claims.

The added respondents supported the bifurcation of the property issue.

The applicant, Leslie Wynn, opposed the motion, seeking a single trial for all issues.

The court granted the motion, ordering the severance of issues into three separate trials or segments.

The court found that bifurcation was convenient and in the interests of justice due to the case's complexity, the potential for significant cost and time savings by avoiding extensive valuations, and the increased prospects for early settlement, concluding that there would be no undue prejudice to the applicant.

The applicant mother sought supervised parenting time for the respondent father, preservation of cottage sale proceeds, and temporary child and spousal support.

The respondent father cross-moved for unsupervised parenting time.

The court denied the applicant's request for supervised parenting, granting the respondent unsupervised parenting time with a specific schedule.

Issues regarding the cottage property were adjourned to a later date to allow the added respondent (the father's sister, legal owner of the cottage) to make submissions.

Temporary financial orders were made to maintain the status quo, requiring the respondent to pay certain household and vehicle expenses, and an uncharacterized amount of $6,000 per month to the applicant, pending full financial disclosure and a future case conference.

The respondent was also ordered to enroll in the Caring Dads program.