Pierre E. Roger

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to set aside a separation agreement and a subsequent Corollary Relief Order of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.

The court held that it had no jurisdiction to set aside the Nova Scotia order, as the separation agreement had been incorporated into the Corollary Relief Order and any challenge must be brought before the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.

The defendant Ivan Frisken's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, as the court found he was not the estate trustee, caused no damages, and there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff's motion was dismissed and costs were ordered on a partial indemnity basis.

In a family trial addressing parenting time, decision-making responsibility, child support arrears, section 7 expenses, and costs, the court fixed child support arrears at $3,000 as of September 1, 2025 and found annual income of $50,000 for support purposes.

The court held that decision-making should follow consultation, with final say to the respondent, because joint decision-making was found unworkable on the evidence.

Parenting time was expanded in a staged structure, including increased overnight time and a future increase for the younger child starting September 2026, while maintaining the children’s primary residence with the respondent.

The court also made ancillary orders on exchanges, travel, communication through OurFamilyWizard, extracurricular responsibilities, and summer and holiday arrangements.

Costs of $24,000 were awarded to the respondent, payable by the applicant, with one-third enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

Following a five-week trial, the offenders were convicted of fraud over $5,000 and uttering a forged document arising from a fraudulent mandatory entry-level training scheme for commercial truck drivers.

Between January 2019 and May 2021, the offenders operated unregistered truck driver schools, charged students $4,000-$5,000 for substandard training that did not meet MELT standards, and paid accomplices to fraudulently upload false MELT completion records to the MTO database.

Approximately 45-47 students per offender were defrauded.

The Crown sought five years imprisonment; the offenders sought a conditional sentence of 12-18 months.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day with strict conditions including house arrest for the full duration, 200 hours of community service, and a forfeiture order against one offender for three commercial trucks valued at approximately $100,000.

The appellant appealed convictions for mischief and obstructing police arising from his presence in a restricted area on Wellington Street during the Freedom Convoy occupation of Ottawa on February 19, 2022.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding police had common law authority to secure the area, that his arrest violated s. 9 of the Charter, that the search incident to arrest breached s. 8 of the Charter, and that the evidence should have been excluded.

The appeal court found the trial judge correctly applied the ancillary powers doctrine and properly assessed the officer's reasonable grounds for arrest.

The appeal was dismissed on all grounds.

The accused, Anis Rehman, was charged with sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching involving a young complainant at a private daycare in 2019.

The court reviewed the evidence of the complainant, the accused, and defence witnesses, and applied the principles of reasonable doubt and credibility assessment, especially as they relate to child witnesses.

The court found the complainant credible but concluded that the defence evidence raised a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

This costs endorsement addresses the appropriate amount of costs payable by the defendant to the plaintiff following a wrongful dismissal action under the simplified procedure.

The court reviews the parties’ conduct, the complexity of the case, the offers to settle, and the applicable rules, ultimately awarding the plaintiff the maximum costs permitted under Rule 76.12.1, plus reasonable disbursements, due to the defendant’s unreasonable settlement position and litigation conduct.

The court considered a wrongful dismissal claim by Jesse Lachapelle against St. Laurent Automotive Group Inc. following his layoff during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the plaintiff was constructively dismissed on March 24, 2020, and was entitled to seven months’ reasonable notice, with credit for inducement and the impact of the pandemic on employment prospects.

The court rejected the employer’s arguments regarding force majeure and found that the plaintiff was not required to accept substantially altered terms of employment.

The plaintiff was not entitled to aggravated, bad faith, or punitive damages, as the employer’s conduct was not malicious or high-handed.

The court calculated damages based on the plaintiff’s actual earnings and benefits, and dismissed the claim for a construction retention bonus.

The plaintiff, Matthew Deveaux, sought leave under section 17 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act to proceed with claims against the Crown and other defendants, alleging a cover-up and various statutory breaches following his arrest and prosecution.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to meet the threshold for leave, as there was no reasonable possibility of success in establishing bad faith or malice by the Crown.

The motion was dismissed, and the action declared a nullity as against the Crown.

The court dismissed the Defendants’ motion to adjourn the pretrial and trial, finding that the issues before the Divisional Court and those to be resolved at trial were not the same.

The trial would resolve the equitable ownership issue, and proceeding as scheduled would be fair and just.

The court also awarded costs to the Plaintiffs on a partial indemnity basis, finding the motion unnecessary and not required to be decided before trial.

The defendant, Jama Saban, brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on the issue of liability for a motor vehicle accident involving the plaintiff, Micheal Nelson.

The court reviewed dashcam evidence and affidavits from both parties.

The court found that while the plaintiff rear-ended the defendant, there was evidence that the defendant may have stopped unnecessarily and without checking his rearview mirror, potentially contributing to the accident.

As a result, the court held that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial on liability and dismissed the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The Family Responsibility Office sought a warrant of committal against Orrett Fagan for non-payment of child support arrears and ongoing support, pursuant to a default order.

Fagan cross-moved to set aside or vary the default order, citing health issues and reduced income.

The court considered the factors for setting aside a default order under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules, finding Fagan had an arguable defence but had not acted promptly and had a history of non-compliance.

The court suspended the committal order pending further proceedings, set new payment terms, and provided for future review and possible committal if Fagan failed to comply.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion to strike the respondent's pleadings and for other relief, finding such an order would be disproportionate given the circumstances.

While there was imperfect and late compliance with court orders, new counsel had recently produced substantial disclosure, and most outstanding disclosure was sufficiently explained.

The court ordered costs of $3,000 payable by the respondent to the applicant and made procedural orders to streamline the matter toward resolution or trial.

The decision addresses procedural issues arising at the start of a wrongful dismissal trial under the simplified procedure.

The plaintiff sought relief regarding the admissibility of certain documents produced late by the defendant and guidance on trial management.

The court held that a redacted settlement letter could be admitted due to a compelling public interest, but excluded other late-produced documents for lack of explanation.

The court also clarified the treatment of discovery transcripts and trial affidavits, and allowed an amendment to the Statement of Claim on consent.

The plaintiff, Shawn Balla, brought a motion to lift the stay of his action imposed by section 17 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.

The motion was heard on January 7, 2025.

The court found that Balla met the test for leave under subsection 17(7) of the Act, establishing both good faith and a reasonable possibility of success in his claim of bad faith against certain defendants.

The court granted leave against those defendants who wrote "responsive" on the Health Care Observation Forms, allowing the action to proceed against them, and provided directions for further disclosure and amendment of the statement of claim.

This ruling addresses a third-party records application brought by the accused in a sexual assault case.

The accused sought disclosure of the complainant's therapist's records and Children's Aid Society (CAS) records.

Applying the two-stage analysis under section 278 of the Criminal Code, the court ordered the therapist's records produced to the court for a Stage 2 review, finding them likely relevant and necessary due to the circumstances surrounding the complainant's memory resurfacing.

However, the CAS records were not ordered produced, as they failed to meet the "likely relevant" threshold at Stage 1, lacking an evidentiary foundation beyond conjecture and having weak probative value compared to the complainant's privacy interests.

The defendants, Canada School of Public Service et al., brought a motion to set aside a noting of default entered by the self-represented plaintiff, Elsa Joseph.

The plaintiff argued that a 20-day timeline applied under the Rules of Civil Procedure and that the defendants were in contempt for non-compliance with court orders.

The court found that while the Crown Liability and Proceedings Regulations suggested a 30-day timeline, even assuming a 20-day timeline, the interests of justice favored setting aside the default.

The court found the defendants' delay was extremely short (about three days), their reasons for delay reasonable (seeking to finalize the statement of claim content), and that they showed a continued intention to defend the matter.

The court also ordered the matter to case management, finding it a useful tool for this complex action with a self-represented plaintiff who misunderstood the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $2,500 in partial indemnity costs due to her unreasonable conduct in noting default and refusing to set it aside.

The offender, Justin Cassie-Berube, was sentenced for manslaughter, assault causing bodily harm, and assault related to the death of a five-year-old child, Chloe.

The court found that the offender failed to provide necessities of life and medical attention to Chloe, leading to her death, and had repeatedly abused her.

The sentencing considered aggravating factors such as the victim's vulnerability, breach of trust, and the deliberate failure to seek medical help to avoid legal jeopardy.

Mitigating factors included the offender's lack of criminal record, young age, and mental health issues, though his lack of true remorse limited mitigation.

A global sentence of 14 years imprisonment was imposed, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence.

The defendant brought a motion seeking an order that the plaintiffs disclose and produce information regarding an adverse costs insurance policy held by their law firm, which could satisfy a costs judgment.

The plaintiffs argued the policy was not disclosable under the Rules of Civil Procedure and was protected by privilege.

The court granted the defendant's motion, ruling that Rules 30.02(3) and 31.06(4) require disclosure of such policies regardless of who holds them, as they may be liable to satisfy a judgment.

The court found prior conflicting decisions unpersuasive and ordered specific disclosure, reserving on the issue of privilege for later determination if the parties could not agree.

The court heard two applications concerning the interpretation of an Asset Purchase Agreement.

The vendor (1000197094 ONTARIO INC.) sought a declaration that Section 3.04 of the agreement constituted an arbitration agreement.

The purchaser (1872488 ONTARIO INC.) argued against this and brought a cross-application seeking disclosure of information related to Work in Progress and Net Earned Revenue valuations, and a determination that the valuation process was not arbitration.

The court found that Section 3.04 was indeed an arbitration agreement, requiring a final and binding determination by an independent accounting firm.

The court also ordered ongoing disclosure of relevant information by both parties regarding Work in Progress and Net Earned Revenue, clarifying that these two items were the subject of the dispute.