Pandora Du

This decision follows a 13-day trial regarding the breakdown of a six-year marriage with no children, focusing on property division and damages arising from domestic violence.

The court addresses claims for constructive and resulting trusts, the characterization of family advances as loans or gifts, equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, and damages for family violence.

The court finds that the applicant is entitled to a 50% interest in both properties by way of constructive trust, that certain family advances were loans and others gifts, and awards damages for family violence.

A permanent restraining order is also granted.

The Applicant brought an urgent motion seeking the return of the child to Ontario, an order vesting property in her name, orders restraining property depletion, and leave to file a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL).

The court dismissed the motion.

It found the child's habitual residence was in China, not Canada, and declined jurisdiction over the child's return.

For the CPL, the Applicant failed to provide an undertaking for damages and did not sufficiently demonstrate a triable issue regarding her interest in the property, which was not a matrimonial home and was registered solely in the Respondent's name.

The court also noted that China appeared to be the more appropriate forum for resolving the parties' claims, given the child's and Respondent's residence, and the location of most marital assets.

The plaintiff brought a motion for contempt against the defendant for breaching a permanent injunction prohibiting him from publishing defamatory statements about the plaintiff.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally published numerous defamatory posts on WeChat, breaching the clear order of which he had actual notice.

The court found the defendant guilty of civil contempt.

Although the plaintiff sought a 90-day jail term, the court declined to order incarceration, noting the defendant's change of heart and first-time offender status.

Instead, the court imposed a $35,000 fine, awarded full indemnity costs, ordered the deletion of the posts, required a public apology, and issued a further permanent injunction.

The accused, a Personal Support Worker, was charged with assault against two elderly, dementia-afflicted residents of a long-term care home.

The Crown alleged intentional assaults during patient transfers.

The accused testified that her physical contact with each resident was an automatic, reflexive response to being struck or scratched by the residents themselves.

The court found that the accused's actions constituted immediate, unpremeditated reactions without conscious thought or intention, falling within the middle category of a continuum between pure physiological reflex and considered reprisal.

The court acquitted the accused on both counts.

A casino operator sought summary judgment against an Ontario resident for unpaid gambling credit advanced through casino markers.

The defendant argued Ontario was not the appropriate forum and claimed he did not remember signing the credit documents due to intoxication.

The court held Ontario had jurisdiction because the defendant resided and held assets in Ontario and had attorned to the jurisdiction through his pleadings.

Applying Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the documentary evidence, dishonoured cheques, and post‑transaction communications acknowledging the debt.

Summary judgment was granted for the outstanding balance plus contractual interest.