Paul B. Schabas

This endorsement addresses costs following a seven-day trial where the Applicant's claims for equalization and support were dismissed, and the Respondent was awarded $75,000 in damages for the Applicant's abusive tortious conduct.

The Respondent, who was completely successful, sought full indemnity costs.

The court considered the Respondent's reasonable offers to settle, which the Applicant dismissively rejected, and the Applicant's unreasonable and oppressive litigation conduct, including withholding evidence, providing false financial information, lying under oath, making baseless allegations, and repeatedly appealing interlocutory decisions.

Finding that the Applicant's conduct warranted an elevated award, the court ordered the Applicant to pay the Respondent $96,856.96 in costs, covering disbursements, professional fees incurred in China, and compensation for the Respondent's self-representation during trial preparation and the trial itself.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to admit statements made by the defendant, Moesha Woodley, during police interactions on February 25, 2021, and following her arrest on March 25, 2021, in a human trafficking investigation.

The court applied the voluntariness rule, considering factors such as threats, promises, oppression, operating mind, and police trickery.

The court found that the statements from both dates were made voluntarily and were admissible, dismissing the defence's arguments regarding inadequate caution, alleged trickery, inducements, and the defendant's health concerns.

The accused, Dennis Mensah and Marvin Nyarko Mensah, were sentenced following a judge-alone trial where Dennis was found guilty of firearms and drug trafficking offences (fentanyl and carfentanil), and Marvin was found guilty of drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the dangerous nature and quantity of drugs, the presence of a loaded firearm (for Dennis), and the sophistication of the operation.

Mitigating factors included the accused's youth, social context evidence of anti-black racism and growing up in a high-crime, low-income area, and rehabilitation prospects.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay some firearms charges for Dennis.

Dennis received a total sentence of 4.5 years, and Marvin received 5.5 years, with credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions.

Ancillary orders included lifetime weapons prohibitions and forfeiture of seized items.

This case involved a trial concerning corollary issues following a divorce, including equalization of net family property, spousal support, and damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The Applicant sought equalization and spousal support, while the Respondent sought a restraining order, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, unequal distribution of net family property, and damages for abuse.

The court dismissed the Applicant's claims, finding his evidence unreliable and his financial contributions negligible.

The court granted the Respondent's claims, ordering the Applicant to pay $75,000 in damages for abusive tortious conduct, granting exclusive possession of the matrimonial home to the Respondent, and ordering the return of personal property.

The applicant initiated proceedings for a simple divorce.

The respondent contested the separation date and sought to invalidate prenuptial and separation agreements, along with claims for equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The court bifurcated the trial to first determine the separation date and the validity of the agreements.

The court found the date of separation to be January 6, 2016, which consequently barred the respondent's property claims due to the statutory limitation period.

Additionally, the court upheld the validity and enforceability of both the prenuptial and separation agreements, dismissing the respondent's attempts to set them aside.

The Crown sought to declare the defendant a dangerous offender under s. 753 of the Criminal Code, seeking an indeterminate sentence.

The defendant opposed, arguing the criteria for dangerous offender were not met, and sought a long-term offender designation instead.

The court found that while the defendant had committed serious personal injury offences and exhibited a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a "high likelihood of harmful recidivism" or that his conduct was "intractable." The court designated the defendant a long-term offender under s. 753.1(1) of the Criminal Code, imposing a total sentence of nine years imprisonment (with credit for time served, leaving 113 days remaining) followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

In this interim parenting motion, the applicant father sought primary care of the elder child and shared care of the younger, while the respondent mother sought primary care and decision-making authority for both children.

The court found compelling evidence of the applicant's physical and psychological abuse and coercive and controlling behavior towards the respondent, which exposed the children to family violence.

Preferring the respondent's evidence, the court determined that the children's best interests, particularly their safety and well-being, required them to reside primarily with the respondent mother, who was also granted sole decision-making authority.

The court rejected the applicant's "status quo" argument, finding it was created through coercive behavior, and emphasized the importance of children having a relationship with both parents while prioritizing safety in cases of family violence.

The Respondent brought a motion seeking to strike the Applicant's pleadings, order supervised parenting time, grant temporary sole decision-making responsibility for the children, and disburse the net proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found the Applicant's conduct to be egregious, characterized by numerous breaches of court orders, vexatious litigation, and abusive behaviour.

The court granted the majority of the Respondent's requests, striking the Applicant's pleadings (with an exception for participation in parenting issues at trial), ordering supervised parenting time at the Applicant's sole cost, granting the Respondent temporary sole decision-making responsibility, and directing the release of matrimonial home proceeds to the Respondent.

The court declined to order a psychiatric assessment of the Applicant, finding the conduct, while troubling, did not meet the threshold for such an order, particularly given the imposition of supervised parenting.

A request for a restraining order against the Respondent's family members was also denied due to insufficient evidence and statutory limitations.

The applicant sought unsupervised parenting time with his daughter after a lengthy absence.

The respondent opposed, citing concerns about the applicant's mental health, alleged sexual addiction, and past incidents of family violence, arguing for supervised access.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" principle under the Divorce Act, found that the respondent's concerns did not justify supervised access or a condition of counselling.

The motion for parenting time was granted, with a gradual re-integration schedule ordered, and an intermediary appointed for exchanges.

The respondent's request for supervised access was denied.

This motion concerned an application by the respondent father to vary a divorce order, seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence for the children, and termination of child support.

The children had been removed from the applicant mother's care by the Children's Aid Society due to concerns about their well-being, including isolation, lack of schooling, and the mother's mental health, and were subsequently placed with the father.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that the requested parenting orders were in the children's best interests, considering the father's ability to provide stability and the mother's past conduct, which included alienating the children from their father and failing to provide adequate care.

The motion was granted, varying the divorce order to reflect the father's sole decision-making and primary residence, and terminating child support.

Following a finding of civil contempt against the defendant for repeatedly forging bank records and lying under oath, the court held a penalty hearing.

Applying criminal sentencing principles, the court weighed aggravating factors, including the deliberate and repeated nature of the deceit, against mitigating factors such as the defendant's eventual remorse and lack of prior record.

The court determined that a significant costs award was the appropriate sanction to punish and deter the conduct, ordering the defendant to pay $400,000 as a penalty, plus $44,118.46 for the costs of the hearing on a substantial indemnity basis.

The accused, A.Z.A., was sentenced following convictions for three counts of threatening to cause death, one count of sexual assault, and one count of sexual assault causing bodily harm against his wife and daughters.

The offences occurred over a lengthy period, involving a pattern of domestic violence and abuse of trust.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the seriousness and duration of the crimes, the victim's vulnerability, and the accused's lack of remorse.

Mitigating factors included the absence of a prior criminal record.

Applying principles of denunciation and deterrence, and drawing comparisons to similar cases involving intimate partner violence, the court imposed a sentence of 8 years imprisonment, along with a DNA order, a weapons prohibition, and a Sex Offender Information Registration Act order.

The appellant tenant sought a stay of an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) due to non-payment of rent.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay pending appeal, considering whether there was a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience.

The court found that the appellant failed to raise a serious issue on a question of law, as her grounds of appeal primarily involved questions of fact (misapprehension of evidence, novation).

Furthermore, the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to establish irreparable harm beyond the inherent loss of a home in tenancy cases.

Considering the protracted nature of the dispute and the landlord's entitlement to resolution, the court dismissed the motion for a stay, concluding that it was not in the interests of justice to grant it.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking a Mareva injunction against May Anis and BNP Advisors Inc., a finding of contempt against May Anis, and a variation of an order to make May Anis and BNP Advisors Inc. solely responsible for the Receiver's fees.

The motion arose from a shareholder and employment dispute where May Anis repeatedly produced forged bank records, lied under oath, and provided false information to the court and an investigative receiver.

The court granted the Mareva injunction, found May Anis in contempt due to her egregious and repetitive dishonest conduct, and ordered her and BNP Advisors Inc. to bear all Receiver's fees.

The plaintiff was awarded costs of the motion.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for judgment based on a settlement agreement.

The defendants did not appear or file any materials.

The court granted judgment to the plaintiffs against Patricia Giankas for the remaining amount owing ($20,000) plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and awarded costs to the plaintiffs on a substantial indemnity basis.

Malachi Brown was found guilty by a jury of assault with a weapon and using an imitation firearm while committing an assault with a weapon.

The court addressed the Kienapple rule, determining it did not prevent multiple convictions for these offences due to Parliament's intent to displace it for s. 85 of the Criminal Code.

Considering aggravating factors (use of imitation firearm, victim's age, breach of trust) and mitigating factors (first offender, youth, family support, anti-Black racism social context), the court sentenced Brown to a total of eighteen months imprisonment, to be served as a conditional sentence in the community, followed by two years of probation.

A ten-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order were also imposed.

The accused, charged with armed robbery and related offences, brought an application to stay the proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The anticipated delay to the end of trial was 34 months, exceeding the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Crown successfully rebutted the presumption of unreasonableness by demonstrating that the delay was caused by the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and periods of defence delay.

The court also found that the Crown acted reasonably in refusing to sever the accused's trials.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual assault causing bodily harm, and uttering threats against his wife and children.

The Crown led evidence of prior discreditable conduct to provide context for the abusive relationship.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding the sexual assaults in their apartment to be credible and reliable, despite some inconsistencies regarding historical events.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused, two brothers, were charged with various drug trafficking, firearms, and proceeds of crime offences following a police investigation.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove the accused had knowledge and control of contraband found in secret compartments in two vehicles and cash found in an apartment.

The court found both accused guilty of the offences relating to the vehicles, concluding that their exclusive or near-exclusive use of the vehicles and the presence of personal items in the secret compartments left no other reasonable inference than guilt.

However, both accused were acquitted of possessing the cash found in the apartment, as other individuals had access to the unit, raising a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was found guilty of drug trafficking and related offences based on an Agreed Statement of Facts.

He subsequently brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing he was entrapped by police who offered him an opportunity to traffic fentanyl without reasonable suspicion.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the police had reasonable suspicion based on a compelling and credible tip from a confidential informant, which was further corroborated by the defendant's responses to undercover text messages.