Regional Senior Justice B. G. Thomas

The defendant engineering firm brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for indemnification and damages arising from a fatal industrial explosion.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant breached its contract and professional standard of care by failing to complete a required Pre-Start Health and Safety Review and failing to warn of the imminent danger posed by combustible aluminum dust.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding whether the defendant breached its legislative and common law duties, and whether such breaches caused or materially contributed to the plaintiff's economic losses.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, primary residence of the children, and support.

The respondent sought shared parenting and the sale of the home.

The court granted the applicant interim exclusive possession, finding it was in the children's best interests to remain in the home while the respondent had alternative accommodation with his parents.

The court ordered joint decision-making, primary residence with the applicant, and specified parenting time for the respondent.

The respondent was also ordered to pay interim child and spousal support.

The defendant municipality brought a motion to transfer a personal injury action from Barrie to London.

The plaintiffs, who were injured in a bicycle-motor vehicle collision in London but now reside in Sarnia, opposed the transfer and requested the matter be transferred to Sarnia instead.

The court applied the holistic test under Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that the collision occurred in London, the municipal defendant's snow clearing practices were at issue, and London offered significantly better judicial resources and courtroom availability, the court ordered the proceeding transferred to London.

The Crown brought a motion for default judgment seeking a declaration that the Aylmer Church's conveyance of real property to the Lethbridge Church was fraudulent and void.

The Aylmer Church had transferred the property for nominal consideration shortly after being ordered to pay substantial fines and costs for contempt of court related to COVID-19 public health orders.

The court found multiple badges of fraud, including a non-arm's length transfer, suspicious timing, grossly inadequate consideration, and retained beneficial use.

The motion was granted, the conveyance was declared void, and the lands were made subject to execution by the Crown.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the action from the City of Toronto to the City of London.

The plaintiff's action alleged a conspiracy in awarding contracts for forestry operations in the City of London, seeking $31 million in damages.

The court applied the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that all enumerated factors favoured the transfer, as the events, damages, subject-matter, and witnesses were all located in London.

The motion was granted and the action was ordered transferred.

The accused, who are Indigenous persons, were charged with possessing cannabis for the purpose of selling it at unlicensed dispensaries located on First Nations reserves.

The Crown conceded a section 8 Charter breach regarding one dispensary due to the improper use of a telewarrant, but the court admitted the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

For the other two dispensaries, the court found the search warrants valid despite minor inaccuracies in the premises descriptions.

The court found the essential elements of the offences proven but refrained from entering convictions pending a constitutional challenge.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment entered against the Crown in an action arising from a fatal mining accident.

The parties reached a resolution consenting to set aside the default judgment on terms, including the payment of substantial costs by the Crown.

The court endorsed the resolution, finding that the five-part test for setting aside a default judgment was met, as the delay was due to unique circumstances compounded by the pandemic, and the Crown had an arguable defence.

The court also granted a sealing order for certain medical information to protect personal privacy.

The plaintiff's action initially appeared before a judge for a summary judgment motion in the Central West Region.

The judge noted that the action fit within the definition of a class action currently being case managed in the Southwest Region, and initiated a motion to transfer the action to avoid inconsistent verdicts and promote litigation economy.

The Regional Senior Justice considered the relevant rules and statutory provisions, and ordered the proceeding transferred to the Southwest Region to be case managed with the class action, maintaining the temporary stay previously ordered.

Following a successful motion to strike the defendant's jury notice due to COVID-19 delays, the plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $14,885.98.

The defendant argued for costs in the cause or a reduction, noting the novelty of the issue in Windsor.

The court found the issue was not legally novel enough to warrant no costs, but agreed the plaintiffs' claimed hours were excessive.

Costs were fixed at $8,000 payable in the cause.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after shooting a victim five times at a house party.

The Crown sought 10-12 years and delayed parole, while the defence sought 6-8 years.

The court sentenced the offender to 10 years, finding the use of a firearm and the offender's drug dealing to be significant aggravating factors.

The court granted enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody due to partial lockdowns caused by staff shortages, reducing the sentence by six months beyond the standard 1.5:1 credit.

The court declined to order delayed parole eligibility.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter for his limited participation in the fatal beating of a victim.

The court considered the offender's background, including his exposure to systemic racism as a Black man, but found it to be of limited mitigating significance given the gravity of the offence.

The offender was sentenced to six years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of three years and 355 days.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's $2,000,000 action for negligent investigation and malicious prosecution on a motion for summary judgment, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the litigation was ill-advised and had no chance of success.

The court awarded costs to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis, reducing the amount sought to recognize the effect on the plaintiff, fixing costs at an all-inclusive sum of $15,000.

The plaintiffs brought a successful motion for leave to file a late expert report and affidavit.

The court determined the costs of that motion.

Finding that the relief granted to the plaintiffs was an indulgence to ensure trial fairness, and noting the unreasonable delay by plaintiffs' counsel in delivering the report, the court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of the motion.

The defendants were awarded a total of $18,000 in costs.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the plaintiff's action from Brampton to Windsor.

The plaintiff, a self-described problem gambler, sued the defendants for losses sustained at Caesars Windsor.

The court applied a holistic analysis of the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that the events occurred in Windsor, the damages were sustained there, the community had an interest, and a trial could be heard much sooner in Windsor, the court concluded that Windsor was a significantly better venue.

The motion to transfer was granted.

The moving party, an 81-year-old man, brought a motion to transfer an application regarding his capacity and powers of attorney from Oshawa to Windsor.

The court considered the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting that the moving party resides in Windsor, the capacity assessments occurred there, and a related application was already commenced in Windsor.

Given the moving party's age, health, and the location of witnesses, the court found it in the interests of justice to transfer the proceeding to Windsor.

The defendant, Ontario, brought a motion to transfer the plaintiff's civil action for wrongful conviction from Toronto to Woodstock.

The plaintiff had been wrongfully convicted of manslaughter in Woodstock in 1971 and spent over three years in prison before being exonerated in 2015.

The court applied the holistic balancing test under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that the plaintiff's damages were sustained outside Woodstock and that forcing him to return to the site of his wrongful conviction would be unjust, the court dismissed the motion, preserving the plaintiff's presumptive right to choose the venue.