Narissa Somji

The mother brought a motion to change seeking ongoing child support for the parties' two teenage children.

The father argued he was unable to work because he was caring for his 27-year-old adult son from another relationship who was in crisis.

The court found the father was intentionally unemployed, as he failed to demonstrate that his adult son required 24-hour care that prevented him from working at least part-time.

The court imputed a part-time income of $15,000 to the father and ordered him to pay $250 per month in ongoing support and arrears.

The court also dismissed the father's claim that the Family Responsibility Office failed to properly account for wage garnishments and tax refunds.

The plaintiff brought an action in nuisance, negligence, and strict liability against his neighbour after water from the neighbour's sump pump and failing septic system flooded his property.

The continuous flooding undermined the foundation of the plaintiff's home, causing it to structurally collapse and rendering it unsafe to inhabit.

The court found the defendant liable under the doctrine of Rylands v. Fletcher, as well as in negligence and nuisance, for failing to properly manage his water discharge and maintain his property.

The plaintiff was awarded $505,354.53 in damages to cover the replacement cost of his home and out-of-pocket expenses, plus $100,000 in costs.

This costs endorsement addresses the application for costs by Alexander Heath, former counsel for Wendy Palma, following his successful motion to be removed as counsel of record.

The court found Ms. Palma's conduct in refusing Mr. Heath's voluntary termination of retainer to be unreasonable, contributing to a pattern of delay.

Applying factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the parties' conduct, the low complexity of the motion, and the absence of Ms. Palma's submissions on ability to pay, the court awarded Mr. Heath fixed costs of $2400 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendants brought a motion to remove the current litigation guardian and appoint the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) for the minor plaintiffs.

The current litigation guardian and her counsel failed to attend case conferences and comply with timetables, causing significant delays.

The court found that the current litigation guardian was unable to continue due to health issues and a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The court ordered the removal of the current litigation guardian and appointed the OCL in her place, as no other suitable person was available.

The court also ordered the litigation guardian's former counsel to personally pay costs thrown away for a missed appearance.

The Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) moved for summary judgment against Oplynx Inc. and its guarantor, Toya Kelly Newton, for default on a $200,000 loan.

The defendants admitted the debt but vaguely cited "extenuating circumstances" without providing evidence.

Despite a partial payment from the sale of Ms. Newton's home, a significant balance remained.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, as the defendants failed to substantiate their defence or engage in substantive discussions.

Summary judgment was granted to BDC for the outstanding loan amount plus interest.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, determining that the loan agreement's cost clause did not explicitly mandate substantial indemnity, and the defendants' conduct, while passive, did not meet the threshold for such an exceptional award.

The accused pleaded guilty to theft under $5,000 and breach of probation after stealing cigarettes from a convenience store he was prohibited from attending.

The accused had a lengthy criminal record of over 100 convictions, primarily for property offences driven by a crack cocaine addiction.

The Crown sought a one-year custodial sentence, while the accused sought a sentence of time served (110 days).

The court emphasized specific deterrence and proportionality, imposing a total sentence of 250 days custody, which was deemed served due to pre-trial custody credit.

The court declined to impose a further probation order, noting the accused was already subject to an existing order and could access community outpatient programs voluntarily.

This endorsement addresses the scope of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) involvement in a family law matter.

The OCL sought to expand its order to include a section 112 clinical assessment for both children, not just the older child, citing identified parenting issues and the high-conflict nature of the case.

The respondent mother opposed the expansion for the younger child, arguing he was not the subject of current litigation and that the court lacked jurisdiction without a formal motion to vary.

The court found that a Motion to Vary involving both children was already pending, initiated by the mother in 2020 with the father's response addressing both children.

Additionally, the court affirmed its authority under section 112(3) of the Courts of Justice Act to request such a report on its own initiative.

The court ordered the OCL's involvement to be expanded to include a section 112 report for both children, deeming it necessary to determine a parenting arrangement in their best interests.

Richard Hall was convicted of sexual assault against his teenage stepdaughter, which occurred between December 2011 and September 2016.

The sexual assault involved non-penetrative touching of the complainant's legs, genital areas, and breasts, primarily when she was 17-18 years old and vulnerable due to substance abuse and estrangement from her mother.

The court found significant aggravating factors, including a profound breach of trust as the accused was in a loco parentis relationship, the victim's youthful age and vulnerability, and the significant psychological impact on the complainant.

Mitigating factors included the accused's lack of a prior criminal record, stable employment, and compliance with bail conditions.

The court considered the Supreme Court of Canada's guidance in R. v. Friesen, which emphasizes denunciation and deterrence for child sexual offenses, and the collateral immigration consequences (risk of deportation for the permanent resident accused).

The court ultimately imposed a sentence of two years less one day in jail, followed by a two-year probation order, finding that a conditional sentence would be disproportionate despite the immigration implications.

Ancillary orders included a 20-year SOIRA order, DNA order, firearms prohibition, and non-communication order.

The respondent father sought a contempt finding against the applicant mother for alleged breaches of his virtual and in-person parenting time, and also sought to set aside a prior court order requiring him to seek leave for future motions.

The court granted leave for the contempt motion but ultimately declined to find the mother in contempt, instead issuing a remedial order to clarify and enforce virtual parenting time.

The court dismissed the father's request to set aside the prior order, affirming the judge's case management powers given the history of litigation.

The applicant mother sought substantial indemnity costs of $7,637.90 following her successful motion to compel the sale of properties and release proceeds from the matrimonial home.

The respondent father did not provide cost submissions.

The court found the father engaged in unreasonable conduct throughout the litigation, including failing to comply with a temporary support order and refusing to cooperate with the sale of rental properties.

The court awarded the mother elevated costs fixed at $7,500, to be paid from the father's share of the matrimonial home proceeds.

Ignace Kayiranga was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter following a judge and jury trial.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted a custodial sentence of 9.5 years, accounting for pre-trial custody.

The court accepted the joint submission, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Aggravating factors included the victim's death, the brutality of the unprovoked attack, the offender's failure to assist, and a significant criminal record including a prior aggravated assault by stabbing.

Mitigating factors included the offender's complex trauma from the Rwandan genocide, his sincere remorse, and harsh conditions of pre-trial confinement.

The court recommended substance abuse and trauma counselling during incarceration.

The respondent father brought a motion to change for a retroactive downward adjustment and amendment to ongoing child support due to a material change in circumstances (medical condition leading to disability).

The applicant mother failed to respond or appear.

The court granted the father's motion for summary judgment, finding effective notice was given and that the father's income decrease warranted the adjustments.

Child support was retroactively reduced, effectively rescinding arrears, and a new ongoing amount was set.

The respondent mother sought a final parenting order for the parties' two-and-a-half-year-old child after the applicant father was noted in default.

The father failed to attend the uncontested trial.

The court reviewed the best interests of the child under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, noting the mother's role as primary caregiver, the child's medical needs, and allegations of family violence by the father.

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

Child support issues were severed to be heard at a later trial.

The applicant mother sought a motion to change a 2010 final order regarding child support, seeking a new order for retroactive and ongoing child support.

The respondent father sought a retroactive downward adjustment of arrears based on his actual income and a reduction of arrears due to alleged uncredited garnishments, also claiming inability to pay ongoing support.

The court granted the retroactive downward adjustment of child support for 2010-2021 based on the father's actual income, which the mother agreed to.

However, the court found the Family Responsibility Office's (FRO) statement of arrears accurate regarding data entry issues.

The issues of further adjustment for alleged uncredited garnishments and ongoing child support were adjourned for a further hearing, with a temporary order for $100/month ongoing support and $50/month arrears payments continuing.

This endorsement addresses the respondent mother's request for costs following a three-day trial on parenting issues, where she was deemed the successful party, and for a subsequent court appearance necessitated by the applicant father's counsel's lack of communication regarding child support.

The court found the father's conduct prior to and during the litigation, including late filings and failure to communicate on child support, to be unreasonable and in bad faith.

Considering the mother's more favorable offer to settle and the father's conduct, the court awarded the mother substantial costs for the trial and full recovery costs for the June 20th appearance, while also considering the father's ability to pay.

The Applicant mother sought full recovery costs following a successful motion to enforce parenting time.

The Respondent father failed to file costs submissions.

The court found the father's repeated failure to facilitate virtual parenting time, willful disregard for court orders, and attempts to cause harm to the mother constituted bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Despite the finding of bad faith, the court awarded a fixed amount of $6,500, less than the full recovery sought, considering the father's limited financial means and the overall objective of fairness and reasonableness in costs awards.

Juteah Downey was convicted of 16 human trafficking-related offenses involving four vulnerable complainants.

The Crown sought an 18-year global sentence, while the defence proposed 4-8 years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including Downey's prior human trafficking conviction, multiple victims, violence, and the sophisticated nature of his operation.

Mitigating factors were minimal.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 years, reduced from an initial calculation of 26 years to respect the totality principle, with credit for pre-trial custody.

Ancillary orders for DNA, weapons prohibition, and non-communication were granted, but a restitution order was denied due to quantification difficulties and the accused's limited ability to pay.

The accused, Paul Needham, was charged with one count of sexual assault on his former spouse.

The case involved diametrically opposed accounts of a sexual encounter on January 10, 2019, while the parties were co-habiting post-separation.

The Crown argued the complainant said "no" and "don't," while the accused claimed consensual oral sex initiated by the complainant.

The court assessed credibility and reliability under the W.(D.) framework, finding the accused's testimony credible and reliable.

The court concluded that the accused's actions, based on his accepted account, did not constitute sexual assault, as there was communicated consent through gestures and verbal requests, and he stopped when consent was clearly withdrawn.

Thato Tobo pleaded guilty to theft under $5,000 and breach of probation, admitting to stealing cigarettes from a Circle K while under a court order not to attend the store.

The aggravating factor is his extensive criminal record, including over 100 convictions, many property-related, and 10 similar theft charges from the same store in the last two years.

Tobo attributes his crimes to cocaine addiction and disputes a forensic psychiatrist's report regarding his mental health.

The court, seeking to craft a fit sentence incorporating rehabilitation, ordered a pre-sentence report to explore available substance abuse and social support programs, their accessibility, and Tobo's housing prospects.

Amicus curiae counsel was also tasked with obtaining further information from another forensic psychiatrist regarding Tobo's mental health, rehabilitation prospects, and eligibility for a treatment centre.

The applicant mother sought parenting and child support orders for the parties' child.

The respondent father failed to file an Answer, leading to an uncontested trial.

The court granted interim orders for sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence to the mother, supervised parenting time for the father with conditions (no alcohol/drugs), and interim child support based on imputed minimum wage income for the father.

The child support issues were adjourned for further financial disclosure from the father.