Narissa Somji

In a pre-trial admissibility ruling in a homicide prosecution, the court addressed adoptive admissions, detention, voluntariness, delay in implementing the right to counsel, fresh start cautions, and a privacy challenge to cell-block video surveillance.

The court held that the initial 911 admissions and later scene gestures provided some evidence on which a jury could find adoptive admissions between the co-accused.

Applying the Grant detention framework, the court found no detention during the first officer’s preliminary scene questioning after the 911 call, no breach of s. 10, and no basis to exclude the ensuing statements under s. 24(2).

The court also found the subsequent police interviews were voluntary, that delay in securing counsel with a Vietnamese interpreter was reasonable in the circumstances, and that no fresh start caution was required.

The privacy challenge to brief upper-body exposure on cell surveillance footage failed, and in any event would not have justified exclusion of the later interview.

This decision concerns an uncontested family law trial in which the applicant mother, Narjes Ebrahimi, sought a divorce, a parenting order, and retroactive and ongoing child support based on an imputed income for the respondent father, Mohammad Ali Muradi, who has been absent since 2016.

The court granted a final parenting order in the best interests of the child, C.M., and a divorce, but denied the request for child support due to lack of evidence regarding the father's income or whereabouts.

The Crown brought an application under s. 714.2 of the Criminal Code to allow the complainant in a human trafficking case to testify by videoconference from Thailand.

The accused opposed the application, arguing that the complainant's acute credibility and substance abuse issues required in-person testimony to satisfy the principles of fundamental justice.

The court granted the application, finding that the credibility issues were not so acute as to preclude remote testimony, and imposed conditions to safeguard the accused's fair trial rights, including restricted hours and the presence of a Thai judicial officer.

The court considered a motion by the mother to relocate with the parties’ two children to New Brunswick for her continuing education, and for sole decision-making responsibility.

The father opposed the relocation and sought joint decision-making and continued parenting time.

The court reviewed the best interests of the children under the Divorce Act, the history of parenting, the impact of relocation, and the reasonableness of the mother’s proposal.

The court denied the mother’s application to relocate, finding the plan would sever the children’s relationship with their father and was not fully developed.

The court ordered the parties to continue with the interim parenting schedule until August 1, 2025, after which the father must exercise parenting time outside the mother’s home, and directed the parties to meet with a mediator to develop a new schedule.

The decision addresses a motion for the immediate sale of a jointly owned cottage property in the context of ongoing family law proceedings.

The applicant mother sought the sale, while the respondent father opposed until equalization of net family property was resolved.

The court also considered reimbursement for post-separation and education expenses, and the need for business valuations.

The court ordered the mother to complete business valuations, granted interim reimbursement to the father for certain expenses, and ordered the immediate sale of the cottage, setting out a process for appraisal and sale.

Following a guilty plea to second degree murder committed at age 17, the Crown sought an adult sentence and the defence sought the maximum youth sentence with an Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision order.

Applying ss. 71 and 72 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the court held the Crown failed to rebut the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness, relying heavily on evidence of cognitive limitations, psychosocial immaturity, trauma, peer vulnerability, and meaningful rehabilitative progress in custody.

The court further held that a seven-year youth sentence, structured through IRCS, was sufficient to hold the accused accountable while promoting rehabilitation and reintegration.

A seven-year IRCS sentence was imposed, with partial credit for pre-trial custody, plus ancillary Criminal Code orders.

The decision resolves an application for directions in the administration of the estate of Prema Raddalgoda.

The applicant, Sidath Raddalgoda, sought orders for occupation rent, reimbursement of legal fees, directions regarding renovation expenses, and removal of his brother, Malsiri Raddalgoda, as co-Estate Trustee.

The court found that Malsiri Raddalgoda’s conduct delayed and prejudiced the administration of the estate, ordered him to pay occupation rent and legal fees, required documentation for renovation expenses, and removed him as co-Estate Trustee.

The court also addressed costs, awarding fixed costs to the applicant.

This costs endorsement addresses the entitlement and quantum of costs following a motion regarding the choice of school for the parties’ teenage children.

The respondent father, having succeeded on the motion, sought full recovery costs.

The court found the applicant mother’s conduct unreasonable but not in bad faith, and awarded the father elevated but not full recovery costs, fixing the amount at $4,000 inclusive of HST.

This costs endorsement addresses the entitlement and quantum of costs following a family law trial between Christine Anonby and Erik Anonby.

The court finds the mother was the successful party on the primary parenting issue and partially successful on property issues.

The court awards the mother $85,000 in costs, finding her billings reasonable and the father’s litigation conduct not unreasonable except for the division of chattel.

The decision reviews the legal framework for costs in family law, the conduct of the parties, and the proportionality and reasonableness of the costs sought.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to amend a temporary parenting order, seeking supervised parenting time for the father due to his alleged incitement of the children to make abuse allegations against her and her new husband.

The court found the matter urgent, determined that the father's conduct constituted emotional harm to the children, and ordered supervised in-person and virtual parenting time for the father, with the mother retaining decision-making responsibility.

The court also ordered disclosure of police and CAS records and set out a process for further proceedings and costs.

The applicant father brought a motion for an extension of time to perfect his appeal of a parenting order.

The father filed his notice of appeal in March 2024 but failed to perfect it within the required 30 days, eventually filing materials in July 2024.

The court applied the factors for extending time and found that the father provided no reasonable explanation for the delay, the appeal lacked merit as it attempted to relitigate issues already decided, and the delay prejudiced the mother and the special needs child who required finality.

The motion was dismissed, and the father was ordered to pay costs of $3,500.

The accused, A.D.S., pleaded guilty to the first-degree murder of Omar Al-Khalidi, which occurred when the accused was a youth.

The Crown and defence presented a joint submission for the maximum youth sentence of ten years of custody and conditional supervision under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Justice Somji accepted the joint submission, finding it fit and appropriate given the planned and deliberate nature of the offence, the devastating impact on the victim's family, and the accused's prospects for rehabilitation.

The accused was sentenced to ten years of custody and conditional supervision, with 280 days of credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in 2,022 days of secure custody and 1,348 days of conditional supervision.

This costs endorsement addresses the quantum of costs following the Attorney General of Canada's successful motion to strike the plaintiff's claim.

The court considered the reasonableness of the hours and rates claimed, the complexity and importance of the issues, and the conduct of the parties.

The court found the hours claimed by the Attorney General to be excessive and awarded partial indemnity costs, fixing the amount at $8,468.

This costs endorsement addresses the quantum and entitlement to costs following the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim for delay.

The Defendant, John Akpata, sought costs after successfully striking the Plaintiff’s claim.

The court considered the conduct of the parties, offers to settle, the reasonableness of the costs claimed, and the Plaintiff’s ability to pay.

The court fixed costs at $19,000, finding this amount fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The applicant mother sought a parenting order and child support for their 22-month-old child in an uncontested trial.

The respondent father failed to file an Answer and did not attend the hearing, leading to a default.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, with the father's parenting time at the mother's discretion due to past issues.

The court imputed minimum wage income to the father for child support, rejecting the mother's higher speculative imputation, and ordered ongoing support and annual income disclosure.

No retroactive child support or costs were sought or awarded.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment for the defendants' failure to pay the outstanding principal, interest, and fees for a mortgage loan.

The defendants, self-represented, failed to file defence materials or meet deadlines, and their request for an adjournment was denied.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the defendants breached the mortgage terms, entitling the plaintiff to the outstanding debt, interest, fees, and possession of the property.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

This family law trial decision addresses parenting and property claims following a 21-year marriage.

The court determined the best interests of the two youngest children (L.A., 17, and F.A., 15), both on the autistic spectrum.

The mother sought primary residence and sole decision-making for education and autism-related therapies, while the father sought shared parenting.

The court found a history of intimate partner violence by the father and his continued lack of insight into the emotional impact of his actions.

The mother was deemed the primary caregiver, highly attuned to the children's special needs, and the children expressed a clear preference for more time with her.

The court granted the mother primary residence, sole decision-making for education and autism-related programming/therapies, and joint decision-making with final authority to the mother on other issues.

The father was granted alternative weekend and one alternate weeknight parenting time.

On property claims, the mother was attributed $7,000 in pre-marital savings, and the father's extensive request for reconciliation of household goods was largely dismissed as unreasonable.

The parties were married for seven and a half months before separating.

The applicant sought equalization of net family property, occupation rent, and reimbursement for personal items.

The court found that the property at 156 Barrette Street was not a matrimonial home, as the parties only stayed there briefly and lacked the intention to make it their family residence.

The claim for occupation rent was dismissed because the applicant was not a joint owner and did not contribute to the property's costs.

The court determined the net family property was $4,651.88, representing the increase in the respondent's investment fund.

However, given the short duration of the marriage and the applicant's minimal contributions, the court found an equal division unconscionable under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

Using a mathematical approach based on the length of cohabitation, the court awarded the applicant 12.5 percent of the net family property, amounting to $581.49.

The claim for personal possessions was dismissed for lack of evidence.

The defendants moved for an order to strike the action brought by the plaintiffs and for partial indemnity costs.

The grounds for the motion were the plaintiffs' failure to comply with a prior court order requiring them to appoint new counsel or serve a notice of intention to represent themselves, and their failure to set down the matter for trial within six months after the close of pleadings.

The plaintiffs failed to file a response or attend court.

The court granted the defendants' motion, striking the action and dismissing it for delay, and awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants.

The Applicant mother sought sole decision-making authority, primary residence of the children, supervised parenting time for the father, and imputation of the father's income for child support and section 7 expenses.

The matter proceeded as an uncontested trial due to the Respondent father's repeated failure to participate in proceedings and provide financial disclosure.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making and primary residence, and ordered supervised parenting time for the father at the mother's discretion, citing the children's best interests and the father's substance abuse issues and inability to care for the children.

However, the court declined to impute the father's income based on the mother's unsubstantiated estimate, instead ordering a further motion for income imputation and costs, and compelling the father to provide financial disclosure.

A divorce was also granted.