Morgan Ross

The proposed intervenor, Friends of Shalom (FOS), brought a motion for leave to intervene as an added party in an action concerning the governance and charitable property of the Toronto Zionist Council (TZC) and its operation of Camp Shalom.

The plaintiffs consented to the motion, but TZC opposed it.

The court found that FOS satisfied the criteria under Rule 13.01, as it had an interest in the subject matter, could be adversely affected by a judgment, and shared common questions of law and fact with the parties.

The court granted FOS leave to intervene on specific terms to ensure its participation would be useful and not unduly delay or prejudice the proceedings.

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple assaults and assaults with a weapon arising from a prolonged pattern of physical abuse of two young children in the family home, captured on video over nearly two years.

The court treated the victims' young age, the repeated nature of the abuse, the use of weapons, and the grave breach of parental trust as major aggravating factors, while also giving weight to guilty pleas, remorse, lack of prior record, significant mental health issues connected to the offences, and substantial rehabilitative efforts.

Applying the sentencing principles of proportionality, parity, restraint, and the framework governing conditional sentences, the court found that incarceration was necessary but that a term of less than two years could safely and appropriately be served in the community.

A conditional sentence of two years less a day with strict house arrest and GPS monitoring was imposed, followed by two years' probation, together with a DNA order and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The offender was sentenced to a global six-year prison term after being convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference involving his eight-year-old daughter.

The sentencing judge balanced the severe gravity of the offences and the profound breach of trust against the offender's Indigenous background and systemic Gladue factors.

The court emphasized the significant psychological and emotional harm suffered by the young victim and her family.

Ultimately, the court determined that a penitentiary sentence was necessary to prioritize denunciation and deterrence, while also imposing various ancillary protection and registration orders.

This criminal trial concerned charges of sexual assault and sexual interference against the accused, involving his young daughter.

The alleged incidents occurred in 2017, with disclosure made approximately five years later.

The defence challenged the complainant's credibility, citing the delay in disclosure and a potential motive to fabricate linked to family court proceedings.

The court found the complainant credible and reliable, dismissing the defence's challenges.

The accused's denials were rejected due to inconsistencies with his prior guilty plea for corrupting a child, which was admitted as similar fact evidence.

The court convicted the accused on two of the four alleged incidents (sexual assault and sexual interference for the second and fourth incidents), finding the elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt, while acquitting on the other two due to insufficient reliability or certainty regarding specific details.

The Crown applied under s. 715.1(1) of the Criminal Code to admit a young complainant's video-recorded statement made five years after the alleged sexual offences.

The defence argued the delay was unreasonable, especially given an earlier "golden opportunity" for disclosure.

The court granted the application, finding the statement was made within a reasonable time, considering the complainant's age, the nature of the abuse, and the chaotic circumstances of the earlier police interview.

The court emphasized a holistic, case-specific analysis for "reasonable time" and rejected the "golden opportunity" argument as determinative.

A discrete portion of the statement was redacted.

The Crown applied to admit extrinsic evidence of the respondent's prior discreditable conduct for a similar fact purpose in a sexual offence trial.

The respondent was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against his young daughter.

The extrinsic evidence related to a prior guilty plea for corrupting a child, where the respondent was found masturbating near the sleeping complainant.

The court found that the probative value of the extrinsic evidence, demonstrating a situation-specific propensity for sexual activity near the complainant in her bedroom while she slept, outweighed its prejudicial effect, given the strong similarities in circumstances and temporal proximity.

The application was granted with limitations on the scope of evidence.

The Applicant, a third mortgagee, challenged approximately $200,000 in charges and fees claimed by the Respondent, the first mortgagee, following a power of sale of vacant land.

The Applicant argued the charges were illegal, unenforceable, unsubstantiated, or penalties contrary to the Interest Act.

The court, exercising its power under Rule 14.05(3)(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, reviewed each disputed charge, disallowing many for lack of evidence or legal basis, including a three-month interest penalty and unjustified administrative and legal fees.

The court ordered the Respondent to pay $155,983.41 to the Applicant.

The plaintiffs brought an unopposed motion to vary a Mareva injunction to unfreeze the bank account of one of the corporate defendants to allow for the operation of a store.

The court granted the variation.

Additionally, counsel for several defendants brought a motion on consent to be removed as counsel of record, which was also granted, with directions for the transfer of trust funds subject to the Mareva injunction.

The plaintiffs sought an order extending a Mareva Injunction and Norwich Order, and for production of bank accounts.

The defendants sought a variance of the Mareva Injunction to unfreeze a bank account to allow business transactions in the ordinary course, prevent interference with third-party suppliers, and allow for the payment of legal expenses.

The court granted the relief sought by the parties on consent.

The accused was charged with sexual assault arising from an encounter with a complainant he met through a dating application.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to evaluate conflicting testimony and found that while the complainant’s evidence about further sexual conduct was credible, the Crown had not proven those allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the court concluded that the accused initiated a kiss without consent and without taking reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent had no air of reality.

The accused was therefore convicted of sexual assault based on the non-consensual kiss.

At a case conference, the court established a new peremptory timetable for an application regarding a commercial lease dispute.

The respondent had failed to comply with the previous timetable and recently retained new counsel.

The court ordered the respondent to deliver its record, including proof of payment for additional rent claimed, and set dates for cross-examinations and factums.

The applicants, 2235209 Ontario Inc. and Guy Salt, brought motions seeking interim orders including holding sale proceeds in trust, an injunction prohibiting dealings with Lot 5, a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on Lot 5, and a Mareva Order.

The motions were based on allegations of fraud regarding mortgage amounts, which the applicants claimed vitiated prior settlements where they had terminated their agreements of purchase and sale.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the applicants failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunctions.

The court also noted the applicants' lack of clean hands, delay, and insufficient undertakings.

Domenico Scopelliti was found guilty of manslaughter for shooting his father-in-law, Rocco Zito.

The jury found provocation, reducing the charge from first-degree murder.

The Crown sought an 11-year sentence, while the defence requested 7 years, with the accepted range being 8 to 12 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence due to the use of a firearm and the defendant's involvement in organized crime activities, despite mitigating factors like no prior criminal record and expressed remorse.

The court imposed a 10-year sentence, reduced by pre-trial custody.

The plaintiff purchased a commercial building from the defendant.

Prior to closing, the defendant provided a statutory declaration claiming uninterrupted use of an adjacent driveway without ever seeking permission.

The plaintiff subsequently sued the adjacent owner for a prescriptive easement but lost after discovering the defendant had previously sought permission via an unsigned 1987 agreement.

The plaintiff then sued the defendant for negligent misrepresentation to recover its legal costs from the unsuccessful easement action.

The Superior Court dismissed the action, finding that while the declaration contained false statements and the defendant owed a duty of care, the plaintiff did not detrimentally rely on the misrepresentations because it would have continued the easement litigation based on its counsel's advice regardless of the 1987 agreement.

The applicant tenant sought a declaration that its commercial lease was valid and binding on the new owner of the building.

The applicant had signed a new five-year lease with the previous landlord, but the landlord claimed it was never received.

Both parties, however, acted as if the lease were in effect, with the applicant paying increased rent.

The new owner purchased the building and claimed the applicant was a month-to-month tenant, seeking to significantly increase the rent.

The court found that the lease was valid and enforceable through the doctrine of part performance.

Furthermore, the court held that the unregistered lease was binding on the new owner because the new owner was wilfully blind to the existence of the lease during the purchase process.

The defendants moved to compel the plaintiff to answer follow-up questions regarding customer information and certain refusals during discovery.

The plaintiff cross-moved to compel the personal defendants to answer questions refused at their examinations for discovery.

The court ordered the plaintiff to disclose redacted customer names and contact information, subject to strict confidentiality protocols.

The court refused to compel the plaintiff to interview a third-party business advisor or disclose information related to employee witness statements, citing litigation privilege.

On the cross-motion, the court found questions regarding the defendants' rationale for selling the business irrelevant to the alleged sabotage and properly refused.

Most refusals on both sides were upheld.

The defendant general contractor brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff subcontractor's action, obtain default judgment on its counterclaim, and cancel a lien bond.

The plaintiff had abandoned the action after its counsel was removed from the record.

Another subcontractor opposed the cancellation of the lien bond, arguing it should be pooled to cover its own costs and interest.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action, granted default judgment on the counterclaim, and ordered the lien bond cancelled, finding that the pooling provisions of the Construction Lien Act did not apply where all liens had been bonded off.

The plaintiff purchased a farm property from the defendant vendors.

After closing, she discovered severe latent defects, including a history of basement flooding, a failed septic system, and that the house additions and garage were built without building permits.

The plaintiff sued the vendors for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation, and her title insurer for breach of contract after it denied coverage.

The court found the vendors liable for actively concealing defects and acting with reckless disregard.

The court also found the title insurer liable, holding that the lack of permits and unsafe building orders were covered risks under the policy.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for the full replacement cost of the structures, special damages, general damages for mental distress, and punitive damages against the vendors.

The title insurer was held jointly and severally liable for the replacement costs and special damages, but was granted full indemnity from the vendors.

A creditor applied for a bankruptcy order against the debtor under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, alleging acts of bankruptcy including ceasing to meet liabilities generally as they became due and exhibiting a statement of assets and liabilities showing insolvency.

The court held that the applicant established a prima facie case that the debtor had ceased to meet liabilities generally, based on an unsatisfied judgment debt and unpaid tax arrears to the Canada Revenue Agency within the relevant six‑month period.

The debtor failed to provide independent evidence demonstrating the ability to meet liabilities or establishing a binding arrangement with the tax authority that would negate the inference of general non‑payment.

The court rejected the argument that the bankruptcy application was brought for an improper purpose.

The debtor was adjudged bankrupt and a trustee appointed.