Paul B. Schabas

The Crown sought to admit statements made by the accused during a police interview following his arrest for child pornography offences.

The accused argued the statements were involuntary and that his rights under sections 7 and 10(b) of the Charter were breached, particularly when police asked for his cell phone password without restating his right to counsel.

The court found the statements were voluntary, noting the accused had an operating mind and was not subjected to oppressive conditions or inducements.

The court also held that asking for a cell phone password in these circumstances was a routine question that did not require a further opportunity to consult counsel.

The statements were ruled admissible.

The plaintiff commenced defamation actions against the defendants regarding online broadcasts and internet postings.

A summary judgment motion was scheduled for September 21, 2021.

On September 10, 2021, the defendant retained new counsel, who requested a brief adjournment to prepare a new factum and provide proper representation.

The court denied the adjournment request, finding that the defendant provided no explanation for the late retention of counsel, the plaintiff would be prejudiced by further delay as the alleged defamatory postings remained online, and the administration of justice would not be served by a last-minute adjournment.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to recover $66,547 in litigation loans plus interest from the defendant.

The defendant's counsel requested an adjournment, citing recent concerns that the defendant may lack legal capacity to provide instructions.

Although the evidence of incapacity was weak, the court adjourned the motion to allow the defendant limited time to provide additional evidence of incapacity and respond to the motion.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for investment fraud on the basis that it was statute-barred.

The plaintiffs had invested funds between 2006 and 2008 but stopped receiving payments shortly after.

Despite making inquiries and receiving no payments or return of principal by May 2013, the plaintiffs did not commence their action until September 2016.

The court found that a reasonable person in the plaintiffs' circumstances ought to have known of the claim by May 2013 at the latest.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for defamation and other torts arising from three private text messages.

The court found that the text messages were not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning and were not communicated to anyone other than the plaintiff.

The court also dismissed the alternative tort claims as an improper attempt to dress up a defamation claim.

Summary judgment was granted, the action was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants.

The applicants sought to discharge a $160,000 mortgage held by the respondent, the applicant's stepfather, on their property.

The respondent claimed the mortgage secured an interest-free loan provided to assist the applicant in purchasing a previous property.

The applicants argued the funds were a gift and the mortgage was registered solely to protect the gift in the event of a marriage breakdown.

The court found no contemporaneous documentation of a loan, noted the respondent had previously sworn he was owed no money, and concluded the funds advanced were a gift.

The presumption of resulting trust was rebutted, the mortgage was ordered discharged, and the Notice of Sale was declared invalid.

The moving defendants requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's submissions, which alleged criminal offences for false affidavits and ignoring court orders regarding service.

The court found the allegations unsupported by the evidence and concluded the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The action was dismissed against the moving defendants.

During a class action trial regarding the federal government's alleged negligence in preventing mad cow disease, the defendant sought to read into evidence discovery transcripts from the current representative plaintiff, the deceased former representative plaintiff, and other class members.

The court denied the request to read in the current representative plaintiff's evidence, applying the rule in Browne v. Dunn, as the plaintiff had already testified and the evidence did not merely fill a gap.

The court also denied leave to read in the deceased former plaintiff's evidence under Rule 31.11(6) and (7), finding the excerpts to be of limited importance and lacking cross-examination.

However, the court permitted the defendant to read in discovery evidence from other class members, as it provided helpful real-world insight into the financial impact on different cattle producers.

The self-represented plaintiff, citing a disability, requested several accommodations to proceed with her action, including the recusal of the case management judge, the appointment of an out-of-province judge, and state-funded legal counsel.

The defendants argued these requests were substantive remedies requiring a formal motion.

The case management judge agreed, finding that the requested accommodations could not be granted informally and directed the plaintiff to bring a formal motion for recusal, setting a timetable for the exchange of materials.

Following the dismissal of three related proceedings as an abuse of process, the successful defendants sought costs.

The court found that the plaintiffs' unfounded allegations of fraud and intentional wrongdoing, combined with their attempt to relitigate matters barred by prior releases, justified an elevated costs award.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixing the total amount at $227,532.72, apportioned among the plaintiffs and the various defendants to ensure proportionality and reasonableness.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action on a summary judgment motion, the successful defendants sought costs on an elevated or substantial indemnity basis of over $850,000, or alternatively partial indemnity costs of over $730,000.

The plaintiffs argued for an award of $150,000.

The court declined to award elevated costs, finding the plaintiffs' conduct did not rise to the level of being reprehensible or outrageous, despite making unfounded allegations of fraud and conspiracy.

Recognizing the high stakes and complexity of the litigation between two well-resourced pharmaceutical companies, the court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs fixed at $700,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The self-represented plaintiff requested an adjournment of a scheduled case conference, submitting a brief medical note stating she was unable to attend court proceedings due to an ongoing disability.

The defendants opposed an indefinite abeyance, arguing the note lacked details on prognosis or necessary accommodations.

The court adjourned the case conference for a short period, directing the plaintiff to provide more extensive medical evidence of her disability and to propose reasonable accommodations, noting that the litigation could not be delayed indefinitely.

Following an application to strike down certain condominium by-laws, the parties agreed that the successful party should be awarded $25,000 in costs.

Both parties claimed to be the successful party.

The court determined that the respondent was the successful party, as most of the impugned by-laws were upheld, and awarded the respondent $25,000 in costs.

The respondent was entirely successful in defending an injunction motion and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicants argued that costs should be deferred to the judge hearing the balance of the application.

The court declined to defer costs, noting the uncertainty of the application proceeding.

While the court found the applicants' conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs, it noted their improper conduct in splitting their case and unnecessarily complicating the motion.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $60,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss three proceedings commenced by the plaintiffs regarding a long-standing family business dispute.

The plaintiffs alleged fraud, conspiracy, and misappropriation of funds dating back to the late 1990s and early 2000s.

The court granted the motions, finding that the actions were an abuse of process as they attempted to relitigate issues that had been resolved in prior litigation and settlements.

The court also held that the claims were barred by broad releases signed by the plaintiffs in 2005, 2012, and 2015, and were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and the Trustee Act.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, commenced an action alleging anti-Black discrimination in the workplace.

The defendants sought to schedule a case conference to advance their motion to strike the action on jurisdictional grounds.

The plaintiff resisted scheduling the case conference, asserting she was unable to proceed due to a disability caused by the defendants' conduct.

The case management judge held that while the court must accommodate litigants with disabilities, such accommodation does not extend to indefinite delays that prejudice the defendants' right to have the action determined.

The court scheduled a case conference and directed the plaintiff to consider her position regarding accommodation or retaining counsel.

During a common issues trial regarding the federal government's alleged negligence in preventing the spread of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (mad cow disease), the plaintiff sought to admit eight foreign public records for the truth of their contents.

The defendant argued the documents should only be admitted to show the government's knowledge of them.

The court held that the documents, which included reports from the World Health Organization and the European Commission, met the criteria for the public documents exception under s. 25 of the Ontario Evidence Act and were admissible for the truth of their contents, though the court reserved judgment on the weight to be given to them.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful summary judgment motion in a mortgage enforcement matter.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis as per the mortgage terms.

The self-represented defendant, a real estate agent, failed to file responding submissions.

The court found no reason to depart from the agreed contractual terms for costs, noting the defendant's sophistication and conduct which caused delays.

The court found the costs sought to be reasonable and fully supported, and awarded costs to the plaintiff in the amount of $22,553.40.

The plaintiff, WED Investments Limited, sought costs following a judgment in its favour against Showcase Woodycrest Inc., while the action against 2442459 Ontario Inc. was dismissed.

WED relied on Rule 49.10 for substantial indemnity costs due to a successful Offer to Settle.

The court found that while Rule 49.10 applied, its benefit should be limited to the success against Showcase, as the case involved two separate actions against different defendants.

The court awarded WED 60% of its claimed costs against Showcase, totaling $189,376.93, and ordered no costs between WED and 2442459 Ontario Inc.

This endorsement addresses a costs motion following the dismissal of a contempt motion.

The respondents, who had successfully defended against the contempt motion, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicants objected, citing the respondents' non-compliance with prior orders and improper filing of materials.

The court, exercising its broad discretion under the Courts of Justice Act, declined to award any costs, emphasizing the acrimonious nature of the dispute and the concern that a costs award would further inflame the situation and potentially lead to more inappropriate motions.