Narissa Somji

Following a successful defence against an application to terminate a commercial lease, the respondents sought substantial indemnity costs.

The applicant argued costs should be limited to partial indemnity.

The court found that although the respondents' settlement offers were not formal Rule 49 offers, they were sincere efforts to resolve the matter on terms as favourable as the judgment.

The court exercised its discretion to consider the offers and awarded elevated costs fixed at $20,000.

The Society apprehended twin boys at birth and sought an order for extended society care, citing the mother's history of exposing her older child to domestic violence and her inability to adequately care for the children.

The mother, who had severed ties with the abusive father, relocated, and engaged in extensive rehabilitative programming, sought the return of the children.

The court found the children were in need of protection due to the potential risk of domestic conflict but concluded it was in their best interests to be returned to the mother's care subject to a four-month supervision order, noting her meaningful progress and demonstrated ability to safely parent.

The applicant mother sought full indemnity costs of $9,808 after successfully bringing a motion regarding the respondent father's repeated breaches of a final parenting order.

The father argued the mother behaved unreasonably and cited his inability to pay.

The court found the father engaged in bad faith conduct by deliberately breaching the order shortly after signing Minutes of Settlement.

Considering the father's bad faith, the complexity of the motion, and his financial challenges, the court awarded the mother fixed costs of $8,000, payable in monthly installments.

Following the settlement and dismissal of the plaintiff's claim for a constructive trust and equitable easement over the defendants' property, the defendants sought costs of $121,298.36.

The plaintiff argued the amount was excessive and should be capped at $50,000 under the simplified procedure rules.

The court found the $50,000 cap did not apply because the action was commenced under the ordinary procedure and the defendants had reserved their right to seek costs incurred prior to the conversion.

Considering the defendants' early and repeated offers to settle, the complexity of the proceedings, and the conduct of the parties, the court awarded the defendants fixed costs of $110,000.

The applicants sought declarations that their 82-year-old mother lacked capacity to manage her property and personal care, and orders invalidating testamentary documents she executed in October 2024.

Relying on a court-ordered capacity assessment, the court found the mother had been incapable of managing property and personal care, granting a power of attorney for property, instructing counsel, and possessing testamentary capacity since at least July 2024 due to moderate dementia.

The court declared the October 2024 documents invalid due to lack of capacity and undue influence by her common-law spouse, and affirmed the validity of her prior testamentary documents.

The court also held it had jurisdiction to declare the will invalid while the testator was still alive given she was not expected to regain capacity.

The youth offender, previously sentenced to an Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision Order for first-degree murder, appeared for an annual review under s. 94(2) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court noted that the youth had been placed in an adult provincial facility where he could not access the required rehabilitative programming.

Both the Crown and Defence agreed to confirm the sentence for the time being.

The court confirmed the sentence and ordered a further review hearing to consider potential applications to collapse the custodial portion or transfer the youth to a federal institution.

The youth offender, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced as an adult, appeared for a mandatory annual review of his sentence under s. 94(9) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Both the Crown and defence agreed the sentence should be confirmed.

The court confirmed the sentence but noted the youth's inability to access rehabilitative programming since being transferred to an adult provincial correctional centre.

To ensure efforts are made to provide programming, the court ordered a further review under s. 94(4) and directed probation and social work staff to provide updated reports and attend the next hearing.

The plaintiff brought an action for negligence against an unidentified driver and the TD Defendants following a motor vehicle accident.

The TD Defendants moved to strike the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, or alternatively for summary judgment on the basis that the claim was statute-barred.

The court denied the plaintiff's request for an adjournment, finding counsel's unfamiliarity with a secure document portal insufficient.

The court struck the claim without leave to amend, as it failed to plead any basis for the TD Defendants' liability and the plaintiff failed to add the actual driver as a defendant despite repeated requests.

Alternatively, the court granted summary judgment, finding the action was commenced after the expiry of the limitation period without explanation.

The plaintiff, a self-represented former worker for the defendants, filed a 64-page Statement of Claim alleging constructive dismissal, harassment, and misclassification.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the claim for failing to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the claim lacked paragraph numbers, failed to specify damages amounts for each head of relief, pleaded evidence rather than material facts, and contained unnecessary repetition and superfluous schedules.

The court struck the claim in its entirety with leave to amend within 30 days and awarded the defendants $25,000 in costs.

The defendant employer brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's constructive dismissal claim with leave to amend to provide full particulars, and sought a protective order over a diversity survey and an ombudsperson report.

The court dismissed the motion for particulars, finding the defendant had already filed a statement of defence and the existing pleadings provided sufficient detail to know the case to meet.

The court also denied the protective order, ruling it was premature and that the documents were relevant to the plaintiff's allegations of systemic gender discrimination and a toxic work environment.

The applicant mother brought a motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules alleging the respondent father breached a Final Parenting Order regarding joint decision-making, extracurricular activities, and section 7 expenses.

The court found the father deliberately bypassed the mother on dental care, refused to engage on educational decisions, failed to take the child to agreed-upon extracurricular activities, and failed to pay his proportionate share of special expenses.

The court granted the motion and issued a Temporary Order with specific terms to facilitate compliance and directed enforcement of expenses through the Family Responsibility Office.

The defendant psychiatrist brought a motion to declare the self-represented plaintiff a party under a disability and to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee as his litigation guardian.

The plaintiff had previously sustained a catastrophic brain injury and was found to require a litigation guardian in a related motor vehicle accident proceeding.

Relying on a prior capacity assessment and the plaintiff's conduct in the present litigation, the court found the plaintiff unable to appreciate the consequences of his legal decisions.

The motion was granted and the Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed.

The applicant father brought a Motion to Change a final order regarding child support after the parties' two children moved primarily into his care.

The respondent mother, who is self-employed, failed to pay child support, contribute to section 7 expenses, or provide required financial disclosure.

The court imputed the mother's income at $49,000 based on a vocational assessment and ordered her to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, as well as her proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

The court also ordered the mother to obtain life insurance to secure her support obligations, imposed a $2,000 penalty for her breach of disclosure orders, and awarded the father $14,000 in costs.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's Amended Amended Statement of Claim and Amended Reply on the basis that they improperly referred to settlement discussions.

The plaintiff argued the motion was out of time because the action had been set down for trial.

The court granted leave for the motion, finding the plaintiff knew the motion was forthcoming.

Applying the test for settlement privilege, the court struck the impugned paragraphs, finding they improperly disclosed settlement negotiations, offers regarding damages, and alleged admissions made during those discussions.

The accused, a former Canadian Senator, was charged with sexual assault and criminal harassment of his executive assistant between September 2013 and March 2014.

The complainant alleged repeated unwanted sexual touching at the office and during work trips, as well as controlling and threatening conduct that caused her to fear for her psychological safety.

The accused denied all allegations.

The trial involved extensive testimony from the complainant, the accused, his wife, and corroborating witnesses.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's evidence, including contradictions with witness testimony and inconsistencies regarding key events.

The accused's evidence was found to be straightforward and credible.

The court applied the W.D. framework and found that the evidence raised reasonable doubts regarding all counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to obtaining a material benefit from the sale of sexual services contrary to section 286.2 of the Criminal Code.

Between April 8 and August 16, 2022, the accused facilitated and profited from the complainant's sale of sexual services through advertising, managing communications with clients, booking hotel rooms, and transporting the complainant across multiple cities.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day followed by 18 months of probation, finding that while denunciation and deterrence are paramount sentencing objectives for sexual commodification offences, the circumstances of this case—involving a single adult victim, no violence or coercion, and the accused's rehabilitation efforts—warranted a community-based sentence rather than incarceration.

The Crown sought to call Dr. Saumil Dholakia, a treating psychiatrist, as a participant expert to provide opinion evidence regarding his assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of the accused Hue Lam during the period from February 8 to September 30, 2022.

The defence opposed the admission of Dr. Dholakia's opinion evidence, arguing that if qualified as an expert, the jury would improperly compare his opinions with those of Dr. Zeynep Selaman, a litigation expert retained by the defence.

The court ruled that Dr. Dholakia could testify as a participant expert and provide opinion evidence within defined parameters, finding that the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by prejudicial effects and that appropriate jury instructions could address defence concerns.

The court ruled on the admissibility of expert psychiatric evidence and hospital records in a first-degree murder trial involving two sisters charged with killing their mother.

The accused sought to introduce seven hospital records as business records and expert opinion evidence from a forensic psychiatrist regarding the accused's mental health condition, the effects of chronic abuse, and related psychiatric concepts.

The Crown opposed both applications on grounds of hearsay, prejudicial effect, and necessity.

The court admitted the hospital records as business records and qualified the expert to provide opinion evidence on psychiatric assessment, diagnosis, causes, and impacts of mental disorders, while restricting the expert from opining on the specific conduct of the accused.

The court ruled on whether the defences of self-defence and provocation should be put to the jury in a case where two sisters admitted to killing their elderly mother.

The accused claimed they acted in self-defence based on a lifetime of physical and verbal abuse, which escalated in the week preceding the killing.

The court found an air of reality to the self-defence defence for both accused, considering the chronic abuse, the accused's cultural background, their mental health conditions, and the modified objective test applicable to self-defence.

The court rejected the provocation defence due to insufficient specificity regarding the triggering act and the lack of evidence that the accused acted "on the sudden."

This is a ruling on the admissibility of defence expert opinion evidence in a criminal trial involving two sisters charged with killing their mother.

The defence sought to call Dr. Danièle Bélanger, an expert in Vietnamese society, gender, family, and migration, to provide cultural context evidence.

The Crown opposed the admission of this evidence.

The trial judge conducted a voir dire and ruled that the expert evidence was admissible, finding that it met all threshold requirements under the Mohan framework and that the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effects.

The evidence was found to be logically relevant to issues of credibility, motive, intent, and self-defence, and necessary to assist the jury in understanding the accused's state of mind and the cultural context in which they operated.