Moore

The Crown brought pre-trial applications to admit extrinsic discreditable conduct evidence against the accused, who is charged with second-degree murder.

The evidence included text messages about purchasing a firearm, videos of the accused with handguns, and witness testimony about prior gun possession.

The Crown also sought to qualify a police officer as an expert in firearm identification to testify that the guns in the videos were real.

The court excluded the text messages due to their prejudicial effect but admitted the videos, the expert testimony, and the witness testimony, finding their probative value in showing the accused's access to a firearm capable of being the murder weapon outweighed any prejudicial impact.

The applicant wife and respondent husband separated after an 11-year marriage.

The husband's pleadings were struck for non-compliance with disclosure orders.

The court imputed an income of $100,000 to the husband for support purposes, finding him intentionally underemployed and noting the significant financial support he received from his wealthy father.

The court ordered prospective child and spousal support but denied retroactive support due to unexplained delay.

The court interpreted the parties' domestic contract as entitling the wife to one-half of the equity in the matrimonial home, which the husband had purchased solely in his name.

Furthermore, the court stayed a writ of execution obtained by the husband's father against the husband, finding it was an improper attempt to encumber the matrimonial home and defeat the wife's claims.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after a four-year common law relationship.

The mother sought custody, child support, spousal support, and payment of joint debts.

The court declined to make a formal custody order but granted the mother principal residence and final decision-making authority, noting the father's high-conflict behavior and attempts to undermine her parenting.

Finding that the father had significantly underreported his cash income from his carpentry business and failed to provide full financial disclosure, the court imputed his income at $135,000 per year.

The court ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, as well as retroactive spousal support on compensatory and needs-based grounds.

The mother's claim for debt repayment was dismissed for lack of evidence quantifying the father's share.

The applicant sought an equalization of net family property following the parties' separation.

The court found that the respondent had intentionally depleted family assets, failed to provide financial disclosure, and acted in bad faith by incurring reckless debts.

Applying section 5(6) of the Family Law Act, the court ordered an unequal division of net family property, vesting the matrimonial home entirely in the applicant and ordering the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $184,702.70.

The moving party (husband) brought a motion to set aside a default Divorce Order granted after he repeatedly failed to comply with court orders requiring financial disclosure.

The moving party argued he could not file an Answer due to outstanding income tax issues and claimed he had an arguable defence regarding spousal support and equalization.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the moving party was the author of his own misfortune and had not provided a reasonable explanation for his lengthy delay and non-compliance.

The court held that allowing the motion would adversely impact the administration of justice.

The applicant sought payment of trust funds from the sale of a home she renovated and owned, while the respondent counterclaimed for $90,000 in unpaid services allegedly rendered to the applicant's dance studio companies.

The court found the applicant was the sole owner of the property and entitled to the sale proceeds.

The respondent's counterclaim was dismissed as he failed to establish a contractual basis for the claimed fees, having agreed to cease receiving payments when the business struggled.

The plaintiff vendor sold a property to the defendant purchaser under an agreement that included a $550,000 bonus payable if the purchaser obtained a 'favourable decision' on its 'current application' for rezoning to permit a supermarket.

The purchaser appealed the town's refusal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) but ultimately settled for a zoning amendment that permitted retail use but not a supermarket.

The plaintiff sued for the bonus.

The court held that the bonus clause was triggered because the purchaser achieved the zoning it desired and urged upon the OMB, which constituted a 'favourable decision' on the appeal.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order limiting the cross-examination of the defendant's counsel on his affidavit filed in an undertakings and refusals motion.

The plaintiff argued that by filing the affidavit, the defendant's counsel gave evidence on substantive issues, thereby implicitly waiving solicitor-client and litigation privilege.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master applied the correct legal test and made no palpable and overriding error in concluding that the affidavit did not constitute a waiver of privilege.

The parties sought a determination of costs following a seven-day trial that resulted in a net judgment of $24,894.87 for the defendants on their counterclaim.

The defendants sought $80,000 in costs, while the plaintiff argued for no costs due to mixed success and the defendants' failure to admit facts.

The court found that success was mixed, the trial was unnecessarily prolonged, and the costs sought were disproportionate to the recovery.

The court ordered that no costs be awarded to either party.

The plaintiff commenced an action seeking damages arising from the rescission of a Dealer Agreement, which it alleged was a franchise agreement under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to stay the action, relying on a mandatory arbitration clause in the agreement.

The plaintiff argued the arbitration clause conflicted with an exclusive jurisdiction clause and that the summary judgment exception under s. 7(2) of the Arbitration Act applied.

The court found the arbitration clause applied and that the plaintiff failed to meet the heavy burden of showing this was a clear case for summary judgment.

The action was stayed pending the arbitrator's determination of jurisdiction.

The defendant, a resident of South Africa, brought a motion to stay the action for lack of jurisdiction or to strike the statement of claim.

The plaintiff, an Ontario corporation, alleged an international conspiracy involving the defendant that resulted in the misappropriation of funds intended for a wind power project.

The court applied the real and substantial connection test and found that the plaintiff established a good arguable case for jurisdiction, as the alleged tort and breach of contract had sufficient connections to Ontario.

The court also declined to strike the pleadings, finding them adequate at this early stage, and validated the service of the statement of claim despite technical deficiencies.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased interim parenting time and an order restraining the respondent mother from making major decisions regarding their child without his consent.

The respondent mother sought an increase in temporary child support based on the father's new employment in New York.

The court granted the father's request for increased parenting time, noting the importance of overnight visits for young children to foster attachment.

The court also enjoined the mother from making major decisions without the father's written consent, distinguishing the case from situations where parents cannot communicate.

The mother's request for increased child support was dismissed as the father's potential bonus had not yet been received.

The plaintiff, a senior vice president at a mezzanine financing company, was terminated without cause after nearly four years of employment.

He brought an action for wrongful dismissal, seeking damages in lieu of notice, including lost bonus income and stock options.

The court dismissed the claim for stock options as they were not exercisable at the date of termination, and rejected the employer's argument that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages.

The court calculated the plaintiff's lost bonus income using a historical average and, applying the Bardal factors, awarded a 12-month notice period, resulting in a net damages award of $272,047.86.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' personal injury claims at a jury trial, the court assessed costs payable to the successful defendants.

The plaintiff argued impecuniosity, but the court found he failed to meet the evidentiary threshold to prove an inability to pay.

The court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs up to the date of their reasonable settlement offer, and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, fixing total fees at $180,000 plus HST and disbursements at $51,554.18.

ERM brought motions to consolidate four related actions arising from environmental contamination and a remediation agreement, and to strike the property owners' claims for contribution, indemnity, and nuisance.

The court dismissed the motion to consolidate, finding that the actions should be tried together to avoid prejudice to the plaintiffs' right to separate counsel and to prevent circumvention of limitation periods.

The court also dismissed the motions to strike, holding that the claims for contribution and indemnity were not premature given ongoing Ministry of the Environment involvement, and that it was not plain and obvious the nuisance claims would fail.

The applicant purchased several commercial condominium units in 1987, but due to a lawyer's inadvertence, one unit was omitted from the 1994 registered transfer.

The applicant occupied the unit for 17 years unaware of the error.

In 2008, the original developer sold its remaining units to the respondent in a bulk sale, and the omitted unit was inadvertently transferred to the respondent.

The applicant sought rectification of the land titles register.

The court found that the respondent was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the specific unit, as there was no meeting of the minds, no agreement, and no consideration for its transfer.

The court ordered the register rectified to reflect the applicant as the owner.

During jury deliberations in a motor vehicle accident trial, the defendant brought a motion to determine whether the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statutory threshold under Bill 59 of the Insurance Act.

The court reviewed the medical evidence and the plaintiff's testimony regarding her chronic pain, fatigue, and psychological impairments.

Applying the test from Meyer v. Bright, the court found that the plaintiff had sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function.

The defendant's motion was dismissed.