Mohan D. Sharma

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 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 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 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 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.

The Applicant mother initiated a motion to change a consent Final Order regarding decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and child support for their child, M. The court found a material change in circumstances due to the Respondent father's non-compliance with communication orders, abusive communication, and frustration of the Parenting Coordinator process.

The court granted the Mother sole decision-making responsibility (with a positive onus to consult), adjusted the parenting schedule to reduce the Father's weeknight overnights while extending one weekend per month, and ordered the Father to pay monthly child support and a proportionate share of s. 7 expenses with an annual cap.

The court declined to find parental alienation.

This is a costs decision following a 10-day trial in a family law matter.

The Applicant father was substantially successful on primary issues including parenting and financial orders.

The court found the Respondent mother's conduct unreasonable due to her persistence in unsubstantiated abuse allegations, failure to make offers to settle, late abandonment of relocation relief, and non-compliance with court orders.

While bad faith was not established, the unreasonable conduct and the Applicant's reasonable offers to settle justified a costs award.

The court fixed costs on a substantial indemnity basis, deducting amounts related to criminal proceedings and significantly discounting law clerk fees for administrative tasks.

The Respondent was ordered to pay $130,000 in costs to the Applicant.

In an uncontested trial following the striking of the Respondent's pleadings, the Applicant sought a declaration of resulting trust over the matrimonial home, equalization of net family property, resolution of retroactive support claims, and a divorce.

The court found that the matrimonial home was held in a resulting trust for the Applicant, as she had made all financial contributions and title was placed in the Respondent's name for liability purposes.

The court determined that the Applicant had significantly overpaid spousal support and dismissed all retroactive support claims by setting them to zero.

A divorce was granted, and the Applicant was awarded fixed costs.

The respondent wife brought a motion seeking an advance on equalization, interim disbursements, permission to mortgage a property, quantification of a penalty for non-disclosure, and orders compelling compliance with prior court orders.

The applicant husband opposed, arguing the respondent's non-compliance with parenting orders and his own financial difficulties.

The court dismissed the request for an advance on equalization due to significant uncertainty regarding the net family property calculation and property valuations.

However, it granted interim disbursements of $118,000 to the respondent to "level the playing field" for legal and expert fees, allowing the applicant to secure a loan against his unencumbered condominium to satisfy this payment.

The court declined to quantify the penalty or issue new compliance orders, directing these issues to be addressed at a case conference with the assigned case management judge.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $6,000 payable by the applicant to the respondent.

The Respondent mother and the Children's Lawyer brought a summary judgment motion against the Applicant father seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the children, child support, contribution towards s.7 expenses, no equalization payment, and dismissal of the father's spousal support claim.

The father, who is self-represented and suffers from significant disabilities, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that a fair and just determination could not be made due to insufficient evidence, particularly regarding the father's medical condition and financial disclosure, and the rushed scheduling of the motion.

However, the court issued interim parenting orders granting the mother sole decision-making and primary residence, with the father's parenting time to be in accordance with the children's wishes, including supervised contact for the younger child.

The court also ordered further disclosure and a settlement conference, declining to award costs to any party due to mixed conduct.

This judgment addresses two related applications concerning the interpretation of a Parking Agreement and an Assignment Agreement.

The primary issues involved determining the correct formula for calculating parking rates, the necessity and admissibility of expert evidence, whether retroactive payments were due, and the authority of the parties to negotiate and fix parking rates.

The court interpreted the Parking Agreement to require rates based on commercial, bona fide, arm's length public parking rates, not landlord-to-tenant rates.

It rejected expert evidence as unnecessary for rate determination and found the submitted evidence from both sides deficient.

The court ordered retroactive payments from June 1, 2019, and implied a good faith obligation for all parties to negotiate the parking rate, clarifying that neither 1284225 Ontario Limited nor 200 Ferrand Realty Limited could unilaterally negotiate or impose rates.

The Applicant, Donna Rose Meffe, sought full indemnity costs following a two-week trial where she was largely successful on most issues, including the date of separation, business valuations, and spousal support.

The Respondent, Dominic Anthony Meffe, who was self-represented, opposed the costs request, arguing for partial indemnity and alleging unreasonable conduct by the Applicant.

The court found the Applicant predominantly successful and the Respondent's conduct unreasonable, citing his failure to comply with disclosure orders, "document dumps," and unreasonable positions on key issues.

The court fixed costs at $190,000 payable forthwith and allowed registration of the order against the Respondent's properties due to his history of non-compliance with court orders.