Mulligan

The plaintiff vendors brought a summary judgment motion against the defendant purchasers for damages arising from a failed residential real estate transaction.

The purchasers had refused to close, arguing that four utility easements registered on title were valid requisitions that the vendors failed to remove.

The court found that the easements were standard minor utility easements explicitly excepted under paragraph 10 of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and were clearly shown on the survey attached to the agreement.

The court granted summary judgment to the vendors, finding the purchasers breached the contract, and awarded $430,000 in damages based on the loss from the property's resale.

The appellants (vendors) appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent (purchaser) $17,488.27 in damages for a breach of warranty in a residential real estate transaction.

The trial judge found the vendors failed to disclose an HVAC rental contract and removed fixtures prior to closing.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the palpable and overriding error standard of review and found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiffs sued the City of Barrie and several of its employees for misfeasance in public office and intentional interference with economic relations.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants unlawfully interfered with their negotiations to lease a portion of their property to Rogers Communications for a cell phone tower.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the city employees did not engage in deliberate unlawful conduct or intend to harm the plaintiffs.

The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to prove causation or damages, as Rogers had other options and the lease contained an escape clause.

The plaintiff son and defendant father were involved in a family business dispute over well drilling companies.

The son brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking to be appointed as a director and to have the corporate assets evaluated, while the father brought a cross-motion seeking to wind up the company.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the voluminous conflicting affidavit evidence and credibility issues required a full trial.

However, the court granted an interim order increasing the land rent paid by the corporation to the father based on an unchallenged appraisal.

The applicants sought leave to appeal an arbitration award that ordered them to pay $275,431 in damages and costs for breach of a real estate development agreement.

The respondent brought a cross-application to enforce the award.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the arbitrator made no errors of law and that the issues raised regarding the Real Property Limitations Act and the assessment of damages were questions of mixed fact and law entitled to deference.

The court granted the respondent's application to enforce the award.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for impaired driving and driving 'over 80'.

He argued the trial judge provided insufficient reasons for the impaired driving conviction and erred in dismissing a section 8 Charter motion regarding a delayed breath demand.

The summary conviction appeal judge found the trial judge's reasons met the functional test for sufficiency.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding that the breath demand, made 15 minutes after arrest because the officer forgot in the chaotic scene, was made 'as soon as practicable'.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants, five beneficiaries of the estate, brought an application requiring the estate trustees to pass accounts.

The court had to determine whether a joint bank account held by the deceased and one of the trustees was an asset of the estate, and whether legal and accounting fees incurred by the trustee should be deducted from her executor's compensation.

The court found that the joint account was an asset of the estate, as the trustee failed to rebut the presumption of resulting trust.

The court also held that $37,512.57 in legal fees should be deducted from the trustee's compensation because the accounts did not differentiate between legal work and executor's work, but allowed the accounting and tax preparation fees to be paid by the estate.

The trustee was awarded net compensation of $7,522.25.

The offender was convicted of armed robbery of a pharmacy, assault with a weapon, wearing a mask, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The offender struck the pharmacist with a handgun and stole opioids.

The court considered the offender's youth, criminal record, and the vulnerability of pharmacies.

A global sentence of 6 years was imposed, consisting of 5.5 years for robbery, concurrent sentences for assault and wearing a mask, and a consecutive 6-month sentence for the firearms prohibition breach, less credit for pre-trial custody.

The applicant, charged with production and possession for the purpose of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging a breach of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total time from arrest to the anticipated end of trial was over 54 months.

Applying the transitional framework from R. v. Jordan, the court deducted significant periods of defence delay caused by the applicant repeatedly changing counsel, waiving s. 11(b) rights, and re-electing his mode of trial.

The net delay was calculated at approximately 24.5 months, which fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court trials.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to several offences, including break and enter to steal a firearm, motor vehicle theft, and possession of a firearm obtained by crime.

Following the theft, the accused crashed the stolen motorcycle and sustained a severe traumatic brain injury.

The accused brought a Charter challenge arguing that the one-year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 96(2)(a) of the Criminal Code constituted cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter, given his medical condition and vulnerability in custody.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the one-year sentence was not grossly disproportionate for the accused or in reasonable hypothetical scenarios.

The court imposed a global sentence of one year imprisonment, noting the correctional facility could accommodate the accused's medical needs.

The accused was charged with armed robbery, assault with a weapon, disguise with intent, and possession of a firearm while prohibited, following a robbery at a pharmacy where opioids were stolen.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's post-offence conduct of demanding a ride and threatening a witness near the scene shortly after the robbery.

The court found that the Crown proved the accused's identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, despite the weapon not being recovered, the court inferred from the witnesses' observations and the accused's conduct that the weapon was a real firearm.

The accused was found guilty on all four counts.

The offender pleaded guilty to producing marijuana after police found 29 plants in his home, which he shared with his 13-year-old daughter.

He grew the marijuana for personal use to manage chronic pain and sold surplus to friends.

The Crown initially sought a mandatory minimum sentence of six months but withdrew its notice, rendering a constitutional challenge moot.

The court considered the offender's lack of a criminal record, guilty plea, remorse, and positive rehabilitation efforts.

The court imposed a suspended sentence and 18 months of probation.

The applicant pleaded guilty to producing marijuana and cannabis resin.

The Crown initially sought a mandatory minimum sentence but later withdrew its notice, rendering the applicant's constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum provision moot.

The applicant argued the court should still hear the challenge based on the Borowski principles.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot challenge, noting that a similar constitutional issue was already under appellate review, the provision did not create an inflationary floor for sentencing, and hearing the application would unduly consume judicial resources.

The offender, an Aboriginal woman with no prior criminal record, was convicted of trafficking in Oxycodone.

A Gladue Report detailed her history of intergenerational trauma, substance abuse, and significant efforts at self-rehabilitation prior to her involvement with the criminal justice system.

The court applied Gladue and Ipeelee principles, finding that a custodial sentence would severely disrupt her rehabilitation and her role as a mother.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months of probation and 100 hours of community service.

The 77-year-old plaintiff advanced over $1,000,000 to her adult daughter and son-in-law over a two-year period following a reconciliation.

The funds were used to pay off a mortgage, purchase a new home, install a pool, and included a transfer of shares.

After the parties had a falling out and the plaintiff moved out of the shared home, she sued for the return of the funds, claiming they were loans or held on resulting trust.

The court applied the Pecore principles and found that the defendants successfully rebutted the presumption of resulting trust, proving on a balance of probabilities that all advances were unconditional gifts.

The plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment, moving expenses, occupation rent, and punitive damages were also dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which found him incapable of consenting to treatment with anti-psychotic medication.

The appellant, who suffers from a primary psychotic disorder, argued he was capable.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the Board's application of the two-part test under the Health Care Consent Act.

Applying a reasonableness standard of review, the court upheld the Board's finding that the appellant lacked the ability to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his decision due to his lack of insight into his illness.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant was arrested for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police observed him engaging in suspected hand-to-hand drug transactions from his rental vehicle.

A subsequent warrantless search of the vehicle at the police station yielded 5.5 grams of crack cocaine.

The applicant brought a Charter motion to exclude the evidence, alleging breaches of his s. 8 and s. 9 rights.

The court dismissed the application, finding the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and that the search was a lawful search incident to arrest.

The court further noted that even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The applicant was arrested for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police observed him engaging in suspected hand-to-hand drug transactions from his rental vehicle.

Following his arrest, police towed the vehicle to the station and conducted a warrantless search, discovering 5.5 grams of crack cocaine hidden in the visor.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his s. 8 and s. 9 rights, arguing the police lacked reasonable grounds for arrest and that the search was unlawful.

The court dismissed the application, finding the officers had objectively reasonable grounds for the arrest based on their observations and experience, and that the subsequent vehicle search was a lawful search incident to arrest.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant homeowners for unpaid invoices relating to a home renovation and addition.

The parties had not signed a written contract.

The plaintiff argued the agreement was a 'cost plus' contract, while the defendants argued it was a fixed price contract based on an initial verbal estimate.

The court found the agreement was a cost plus contract, noting the defendants had previously paid an invoice detailing materials, sub-trades, and contractor profit without objection.

However, the court reduced the plaintiff's claim by $5,000 due to the plaintiff's failure to bill labour accurately and provide timely invoices as costs escalated.

The defendants' counterclaim for delay-related expenses was dismissed.

The accused was arrested and interviewed by police after making statements to undercover officers.

The Crown did not intend to introduce the police interview.

The defence brought an application to introduce specific exculpatory portions of the police interview, arguing they amplified the accused's earlier statements to the undercover officers.

The Crown opposed, arguing the statements were hearsay, self-serving, and would allow the accused to avoid cross-examination.

The court granted the application, finding the statements were an amplification of the earlier undercover interview and that the Crown would not be unfairly disadvantaged as it could introduce other parts of the interview.