Narissa Somji

The accused, Guy Coté, was charged with 57 property-related offences, primarily break and enter and mischief, stemming from a spree of unlawful entries into residential and commercial buildings where utility systems were disrupted.

The Crown withdrew several counts, and the trial proceeded on remaining counts related to 12 premises.

The court relied on circumstantial evidence, including video footage and similar act evidence, to establish identity and guilt.

The accused was found guilty on most counts, but acquitted on others where evidence was insufficient or the Crown conceded.

The accused, Nicholas Cox and Erick Silva-Stone, pleaded guilty to unlawful act manslaughter in the death of Christopher Avery Houghton, which occurred during a robbery involving an unloaded firearm and subsequent stabbing.

The court accepted a joint submission on sentence, imposing 12 years custody for Mr. Cox (who had a youth record for similar offences) and 10 years custody for Mr. Silva-Stone (a first-time offender).

The judge considered aggravating factors including the profound impact on the victim's family, the callous nature of the crime, the use of a weapon, and the commission during a robbery.

Mitigating factors included early guilty pleas, sincere expressions of remorse, young age, and efforts towards rehabilitation.

The plaintiff, Stephen Massey, brought a negligence claim seeking $7 million against his former counsel, Ralph A. Lee Law Office and Ralph A. Lee, alleging inadequate representation in a family law matter.

The defendants moved to strike the Statement of Claim under Rule 25.11, arguing it failed to properly plead elements for ten causes of action and was too vague.

The plaintiff was self-represented and did not respond to the motion.

The court struck claims for breach of duty of care, breach of trust, breach of confidence, intentional infliction of mental distress, malice, bad faith, and malpractice without leave to amend, finding them seriously deficient and unlikely to succeed.

Claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty were struck with leave to amend, as material facts were scattered but could be redrafted.

The court dismissed the defendant's request to strike the entire claim, finding it not entirely without merit.

The court also granted the defendant's request for security for costs of $10,000, citing the plaintiff's unpaid prior cost orders and insufficient assets, and awarded $5,000 in substantial indemnity costs for the motion to the defendant.

The applicant mother brought a motion alleging the respondent father breached a parenting order regarding virtual and in-person parenting time with their child.

She sought specified unsupervised parenting time in Nova Scotia and the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The court found the father in wilful non-compliance due to repeated missed virtual calls, obstruction of in-person visits, and disrespectful communication.

Applying Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court declined to exercise discretion in the father's favour.

The court ordered temporary, supervised in-person parenting time for the mother in Nova Scotia for two to three weeks during the summer, with the mother responsible for travel costs.

The OCL was appointed due to concerns about the child's emotional well-being, school attendance, and academic performance.

This is a costs endorsement following an urgent motion where the mother successfully sought to reinstate parenting time with her child.

The mother requested substantial indemnity costs, which the father opposed, arguing his conduct was reasonable and the billings excessive.

The court found the mother was the successful party and presumptively entitled to costs.

The father's conduct, including inappropriately sending an offer to settle directly to the mother and withholding the child's visitation, was deemed unreasonable and warranted an elevated costs award.

The court also noted the father's attempt to relitigate the issue of urgency.

An elevated costs award of $3500 was deemed fair and reasonable.

The parties, former common-law spouses, brought cross-motions concerning the interim sale of their jointly owned home and the distribution of proceeds, and the respondent also sought interim spousal support.

The court ordered the sale of the home, specifying the immediate distribution of a portion of the net proceeds to each party, with the remainder held in trust pending final resolution.

The court also found the respondent was entitled to interim spousal support at the low range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, effective after the immediate proceeds distribution.

Costs were divided due to mixed success.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking an interim order for shared or increased parenting time and joint decision-making responsibility for the parties' three children, along with co-parenting counselling.

The applicant mother opposed, alleging the father was neglectful and citing the two eldest children's wishes for limited time with him.

The court found it in the children's best interests to transition gradually to shared parenting with joint decision-making.

The court did not accept the mother's claims of neglect and found her unilateral conduct had contributed to the deterioration of the father-child relationship.

The motion was granted in favour of the father, with orders for counselling for the father and children, and co-parenting counselling for both parents.

The parties brought a motion to change a 2019 consent order that provided for shared decision-making and equal parenting time.

The mother initially sought to formalize a week-on/week-off schedule, but amended her motion to seek primary residence and sole decision-making after the father unilaterally relocated to Smith Falls, an hour away from the child's school in Ottawa.

The father also sought primary residence and sole decision-making.

The court found the father's relocation constituted a material change in circumstances.

Applying the best interests of the child factors, the court ordered that the child reside primarily with the mother to avoid a lengthy daily commute and maintain stability.

The court ordered shared decision-making responsibility, but granted the mother final decision-making authority in the event of an impasse.

The defendants, successful on a prior motion for security of costs, sought substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff argued for costs to be reserved or deferred, or capped at a lower amount.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct, including failure to provide financial disclosure and file a motion record, was unreasonable, contributing to the complexity and costs incurred by the defendants.

Consequently, the court awarded elevated costs of $8,400 to the defendants, payable within 30 days, rejecting the plaintiff's arguments for deferral or a lower quantum.

The applicant father sought to retroactively adjust child support due to a material change in circumstances, specifically his income decrease due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the respondent mother's increased income and failure to provide financial disclosure.

The respondent mother failed to file responding materials and did not attend the case conference or the uncontested trial.

The court found that the grounds for an uncontested trial were established, granted the father's request for retroactive adjustment of child support from January 1, 2018, and ordered the mother to pay costs.

The respondent father, having successfully brought an urgent motion to reinstate his children in public school, sought costs.

The court found the applicant mother's conduct unreasonable, including attempting to relitigate a decided issue, unilaterally changing the children's schooling, and misleading the father and court.

Despite the mother's financial circumstances, the court awarded the father $3,000 in substantial indemnity costs, deeming it fair and reasonable given the mother's conduct and the case's circumstances.

The Crown applied to revoke the accused's bail on secondary and tertiary grounds following his conviction for 12 counts of human trafficking related offences.

The Crown relied on the accused's prior human trafficking conviction, historical and recent breaches of court orders, and new uncharged breaches involving recruitment of models and entertainers.

The defence argued the accused had complied with conditions and the new breach evidence was unreliable.

The court found the accused's detention warranted on both secondary grounds (substantial likelihood of re-offending given his history, nature of offences, and continued recruitment activities) and tertiary grounds (to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, considering the gravity of the offences, the strength of the case post-conviction, and the likelihood of a lengthy penitentiary sentence).

The court vacated the previous release order and ordered the accused's detention.

The moving party mother brought an urgent motion for parenting time with her 18-month-old child, whom she had not seen for almost two months.

The responding party father supported parenting time but sought a gradual transition without proposing a specific schedule, while the mother sought an immediate move to shared parenting.

The court applied the best interests of the child factors under the Children's Law Reform Act and ordered a gradual transition to a shared, equal parenting schedule.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial, the court convicted the accused of human trafficking, procuring, material benefit, assault, and advertising sexual services arising from an escort operation involving four complainants.

The evidence established recruitment of vulnerable women through online advertisements, a 100 percenter arrangement requiring surrender of all earnings, extensive control over housing, movement, finances, advertising, and access to necessities, and the use of deception, emotional manipulation, and in some cases violence.

Applying the jurisprudence on exploitation and the safety-based purpose requirement under ss. 279.01 and 279.04 of the Criminal Code, the court held that the accused's conduct could reasonably be expected to cause the complainants to believe their safety would be threatened if they stopped providing sexual services.

The court also found the accused materially benefited from the operation, procured the complainants to provide sexual services, and knowingly advertised those services through his agencies and associated phone numbers.

The plaintiff, Kimberly Gillespie, brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant, Diana Tilbert, for failing to file a statement of defence.

The action alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, publicity placing the plaintiff in a false light, and civil conspiracy.

These torts stemmed from Tilbert's alleged assistance to the plaintiff's incarcerated father, George Fraser, in creating and disseminating a defamatory website that blamed the plaintiff for her mother's murder.

The court found Tilbert liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress and publicity placing the plaintiff in a false light, but dismissed the claim for civil conspiracy due to insufficient pleading particulars.

The issues of quantum of damages and costs were reserved for further submissions.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for parenting time of the parties' two young children.

The respondent father opposed the urgency and proposed an alternative parenting schedule.

The court found the matter was not urgent, as the children were safe with the father and the mother had not initiated a formal family law application.

Considering the children's best interests, including stability, history of care, and parental cooperation, the court adopted a modified version of the father's proposed schedule, granting the mother parenting time from Sunday evening to Thursday morning, and the father from Thursday morning to Sunday evening, to maintain continuity of care and equitable time.

The applicant mother sought to vary a child support order due to a material change in circumstances, specifically a reduction in her income.

The respondent father opposed a full retroactive reduction and sought an order for section 7 expenses.

The court reduced the mother's prospective child support obligation from $507/month to $358/month, effective February 1, 2023, based on her 2021 income.

A retroactive adjustment to $358/month was granted for the period from September 22, 2022 (date of effective notice) to March 1, 2023.

The court declined further retroactive adjustments for the period before May 31, 2021, due to insufficient evidence.

The mother was also ordered to pay her proportionate share (36%) of section 7 expenses, including $1751 for the child's orthodontic treatment, payable at $150/month.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility of the parties' four children after the applicant mother left the matrimonial home with them and denied the father contact for several months.

The mother brought a countermotion for primary residence and child support, alleging abuse by the father.

The court reviewed CAS records, which did not substantiate the mother's abuse allegations but highlighted concerns regarding the mother's ability to maintain a clean home and ensure the children's hygiene.

The court granted the father sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, while ordering a week on/week off shared parenting schedule.

Ongoing child support was ordered on a set-off basis, with retroactive support reserved.

The applicants, who are the legal custodians of two children, sought retroactive and ongoing child support from the respondent biological parents.

The respondents failed to provide financial disclosure and were noted in default, allowing the matter to proceed as an uncontested trial.

The court found the applicants were entitled to child support as they had demonstrated a settled intention to treat the children as their own.

The court imputed minimum wage incomes to both parents and ordered them to pay ongoing and retroactive child support, along with costs.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff had been locked out of its leased commercial premises for unpaid rent, and the premises were subsequently destroyed by an accidental fire.

The court found the defendants met their initial burden of showing the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The plaintiff failed to provide robust financial disclosure to establish impecuniosity or demonstrate a high chance of success on the merits.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post $45,000 as security for costs.