Pierre E. Roger

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for an equitable mortgage.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to determine the proper amount of the remaining proceeds from a power of sale.

The court granted the defendants' motion, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial as the parties always intended the plaintiff to have a second-ranking charge behind construction financing.

On the cross-motion, the court disallowed the defendants' three-month interest charge under section 8 of the Interest Act, reduced the claimed legal fees, and ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff the balance of the residual proceeds of $99,400.83.

The accused were charged with numerous weapons offences after police intercepted their vehicle near the border and found a duffel bag containing nine handguns and fourteen high-capacity magazines.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on text messages, the accused's proximity to the bag, and their interactions with the individual who brought the bag into the vehicle.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew the contents of the bag, as it was reasonably possible they were simply giving a friend a ride without knowledge of the firearms.

Both accused were acquitted on all counts.

The plaintiff, 366012 Ontario Inc., brought a status hearing motion under Rule 48.14(15) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to show cause why its action for alleged misappropriation of funds should not be dismissed for delay.

The court found that the plaintiff provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, which included health issues of its counsel, multiple changes in counsel, and scheduling conflicts with the defendants' counsel, as well as delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also determined that the defendants would not suffer non-compensable prejudice if the action were allowed to proceed, despite the historical nature of the allegations and the health issues of some defendants.

The motion was granted, allowing the action to continue under a strict new timetable, with no costs awarded to either party.

The offender, Paul David Batchelor, was found guilty of two counts of sexual assault involving two complainants (Ms. B and Ms. R) after a 24-day trial.

The court considered sentencing principles, aggravating factors (significant victim impact, predatory nature, lack of insight), and mitigating factors (first-time offender for these charges, pre-sentence custody, and difficult conditions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, warranting a Duncan credit).

The court imposed a total sentence of two years and six months imprisonment, along with a two-year probation order, lifetime Sex Offender Registry compliance, a DNA order, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

Miramare Investment Inc. brought a motion to find AOD Corporation and Alain Mercier in contempt of court for violating a prior order that designated Miramare as the sole entity authorized to deal with a specific patent.

The court had previously ruled that Miramare was the sole entity authorized to deal with the patent, a decision upheld on appeal.

The court found AOD and Alain Mercier guilty of contempt, concluding that the sale of the patent was a clear violation of the court's order.

The judge found Alain Mercier's testimony not credible and confirmed that all elements of contempt were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused brought several pre-trial applications, including to quash the indictment, change venue, for particulars, for further disclosure, for examination for discovery of investigative officers, and for a stay of proceedings for abuse of process.

The court dismissed the applications to quash the indictment, change venue, for examination for discovery, and for third-party records.

The application for particulars was partially granted, and an order for further disclosure, including a Laporte inventory, was made.

The application for a stay of proceedings for abuse of process was not granted but may be revisited at trial.

The accused was found guilty of sexual offenses against a young stepdaughter (aged 10) under ss. 151, 152, and 271 of the Criminal Code.

The court delivered reasons for sentence, staying the s. 271 charge under the Kienapple principle and imposing concurrent sentences for ss. 151 and 152.

The judgment discusses sentencing principles, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the application of "Summers" and "Duncan" credits for pre-sentence detention, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court imposed a four-year term of imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody credit, along with probation and various ancillary orders.

The parties, who separated shortly before their child's birth, resolved most decision-making issues but disputed the father's parenting time.

The father sought to increase his parenting time from five out of 14 days to seven out of 14 days on a 2-2-3 schedule, while the mother sought to maintain the status quo.

The court found that both parents were loving and capable, and that maximizing contact with both parents was in the child's best interests.

The court ordered a graduated increase in the father's parenting time, culminating in a 2-2-3 shared parenting schedule by September 2022, and directed that exchanges transition away from the police station to the child's school or the parents' residences.

In a family trial, the court decided an evidentiary application concerning a young child's out-of-court statements alleging physical discipline and expressing discomfort with the applicant's conduct.

Applying the principled hearsay approach from Khan, the court held necessity was established and found threshold reliability for certain statements based on spontaneity, surrounding circumstances, and corroboration from third-party evidence.

A secretly made audio recording of the child was excluded because its poor quality and the systemic prejudice associated with surreptitious recordings in family litigation outweighed its slight probative value.

The child's statements about being slapped and about disliking kisses because the applicant's mouth was not clean were admitted.

The accused was charged with sexual assault involving five female complainants he met through online dating platforms.

The central issue was consent and the credibility and reliability of the witnesses.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court assessed the evidence for each complainant.

The court found the accused guilty of sexually assaulting two of the complainants, finding their evidence credible and rejecting the accused's testimony.

For the other three complainants, the court found the accused not guilty, as the evidence raised a reasonable doubt regarding either the reliability of the complainants' memories or their subjective non-consent.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application to invalidate a patent agreement and the granting of the respondent's counter-application, the successful respondent sought costs.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding the actual fees claimed to be excessive for a simple application.

The court declined to order costs jointly and severally, instead ordering the applicant and the co-respondent (who aligned with the applicant) to pay discrete amounts reflecting their respective contributions to the costs incurred.

The defendants moved to discharge a construction lien, arguing the plaintiff contractor abandoned the contract more than 60 days before registering the lien.

The court agreed, finding the plaintiff ceased work and demanded payment before returning, constituting abandonment.

The lien was discharged, and the action was ordered to continue as an ordinary action.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to post $27,500 in security for costs, as it failed to prove impecuniosity.

The plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to maintain the action under the Business Names Act was granted, but its motion to strike the defendants' counterclaim for breach of trust and oppression was dismissed.

The applicant corporation sought a declaration that a patent agreement executed by its former president with the respondent was invalid, arguing the president lacked authority without a two-thirds majority shareholder approval.

The respondent brought a counter-application to enforce the agreement, arguing it was a valid licensing and option agreement.

The court dismissed the application and allowed the counter-application, finding no evidence of a unanimous shareholder agreement restricting the president's authority.

The court applied the indoor management rule and section 18 of the Canada Business Corporations Act, holding that the respondent was entitled to rely on the president's apparent authority to bind the corporation.

The defendants brought a motion to discharge a claim for lien and certificate of action, and for security for costs.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion.

The court ordered the claim for lien and certificate of action discharged as they were registered late.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in the amount of $27,500.

The plaintiff was granted leave to maintain the action under the Business Names Act.

Costs of the motions were awarded to the defendants in the amount of $15,000.

The applicant mother and respondent father resolved final issues regarding child support arrears, special or extraordinary expenses, summer parenting time, and the location of child exchanges.

The court ordered the father to pay $11,717.30 in child support arrears and $1,000 for special expenses.

The court also granted the father three weeks of summer parenting time and ordered that child exchanges no longer need to be supervised, moving them to a public McDonald's location.

The accused, charged with sexual offences against two young complainants, sought a pre-trial ruling to cross-examine one of the complainants about her prior viewing of pornography.

The accused argued that viewing pornography alone is not a 'sexual activity' under s. 276 of the Criminal Code.

The court held that s. 276 must be interpreted broadly to protect the dignity and privacy of complainants, concluding that the provision applies to the private viewing of pornography.

Consequently, such evidence is inadmissible unless the conditions of s. 276(2) are met.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motions for summary judgment regarding a prefabricated building dispute, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought $50,000 in elevated costs or $40,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found no basis for elevated costs but awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs.

Noting some excessiveness in the plaintiff's use of two lawyers, the court fixed the costs at $33,000, inclusive of disbursements, to be paid equally by the defendants, and ordered a case conference to manage outstanding issues.

Following a successful application for wrongful dismissal where the applicant was awarded ten months' notice, the parties could not agree on costs.

The applicant sought $74,524.59 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the respondent argued for partial indemnity costs of approximately $30,000.

The court found that neither party's offers to settle triggered Rule 49.10 and that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis for the application, a motion to amend, and an abandoned motion to compel, fixing the total all-inclusive costs at $47,000.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion for summary judgment in a simplified procedure action regarding the destruction of a tree, the self-represented plaintiff sought costs.

The defendants argued she was not entitled to costs as a federal public servant who allegedly suffered no lost income.

The court applied the principles from Fong v. Chan and Benarroch, finding the plaintiff performed work ordinarily done by a lawyer and incurred an opportunity cost by using vacation time.

The court awarded the plaintiff $5,000 in costs, representing a reasonable allowance for her time and effort.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought costs as the successful party.

The court reviewed the costs outlines, noted the motion was of average complexity, and found the amounts sought by both parties to be reasonable.

The court fixed the costs payable by the defendant to the plaintiff at $13,390, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.