Renu J. Mandhane

The applicants, neighbours of the respondent, brought a nuisance claim alleging that the respondent's year-round use of a woodstove emitted toxic smoke and that he engaged in retaliatory noise bombing with outdoor speakers.

The court found the applicants' evidence lacked credibility, noting their complaints had evolved over time and were unsupported by expert evidence, while multiple complaints to authorities had resulted in no enforcement action.

The court preferred the respondent's evidence and dismissed the application, finding no substantial interference with the applicants' property enjoyment.

The respondent was awarded $25,000 in costs.

The applicant sought a declaration that she owned a narrow strip of land (approximately 7 feet by 41 feet) located behind the respondents' garage through adverse possession.

The applicant claimed to have adversely possessed the strip between 1998 and 2008, prior to the conversion of the property to Ontario's land titles system.

The court found that the applicant failed to establish the requisite elements of adverse possession, including actual possession, intent to exclude the true owners, and effective exclusion.

The court dismissed the application and granted the respondents' cross-application for an order requiring the applicant to remove her trailer and detritus from the strip and cease trespassing.

The applicant was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs of $10,000.

Supplementary reasons for judgment addressing costs following a five-day family law trial.

The court initially awarded the applicant/mother child support arrears and costs, but upon discovering calculation errors in the original judgment, revised the substantive award downward.

The court then reconsidered the costs award, finding the respondent/father was the more successful party as the mother failed to beat his settlement offer and recovered only a modest amount.

The court awarded costs to the father but reduced the amount due to his unreasonable conduct in withholding financial disclosure throughout the litigation.

The mother was ordered to pay the net amount after set-off.

This is an interim parenting motion concerning a ten-year-old daughter following the parents' separation in January 2022.

The case involves complex family dynamics including allegations of physical abuse by the father towards the seventeen-year-old son in April 2024, and the daughter's disclosure in August 2024 of sibling sexual abuse.

The mother sought sole decision-making authority and primary parenting time with a 90-day "black-out period," while the father sought sole decision-making authority and continuation of restricted parenting time for the mother.

The court rejected both proposals as contrary to the daughter's best interests and adopted a middle-ground approach, ordering joint decision-making with parenting coach support, expanded overnight parenting time for the mother, and therapeutic interventions including SAFE-T programming and family therapy.

This is a costs decision following the dismissal of a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

The plaintiff developer sought $300,000 in damages for defamation and trespass against a local resident and engineering student who raised environmental, social, and safety concerns about a mall redevelopment.

The court dismissed the claim as a SLAPP and awarded the defendant full-indemnity costs.

This decision addresses the quantum of costs, with the defendant seeking $156,394.54 and the plaintiff arguing for a cap of $100,000.

The court awarded the full amount sought, finding it fair and reasonable given the circumstances, including the defendant's reasonable settlement offers, the plaintiff's expansion of the motion scope, and consistency with other anti-SLAPP costs awards.

This decision concerns a long-running family law dispute between Daniela Balian and Dikran Balian regarding child support arrears and section 7 expenses for their two children, both of whom are on the autism spectrum.

The court found that the father underpaid child support and section 7 expenses between 2003 and 2009, ordering him to pay $27,150 in arrears.

The court also awarded the mother $30,000 in costs.

The decision addresses the legal framework for child support, the importance of financial disclosure, and the calculation of arrears, as well as the court’s approach to claims for special expenses and undue hardship.

The court granted a vexatious litigant order against Abu Ubaida Amin and his corporations, barring them from instituting or continuing any legal proceedings in Ontario without leave of the court.

The decision details Mr. Amin’s extensive and unsuccessful litigation history, including numerous proceedings against a wide range of parties, repeated complaints to regulatory bodies, and persistent inappropriate communications with counsel and the court.

The court found that nearly all hallmarks of vexatious litigation were present and that Mr. Amin’s conduct placed an inordinate burden on the justice system.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The court sentenced K.P. to 16 years in custody for attempted murder and related offences arising from a pattern of intimate partner violence, including multiple attempts to poison the complainant with fentanyl and hiring a hitman to kill her.

The decision details the facts found by the jury, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the harsh pre-sentence custody conditions experienced by the offender.

The court considered the offender’s mental health and addictions, but found his moral blameworthiness to be high due to planning, deliberation, and lack of remorse.

The sentence was reduced from 21 to 16 years to account for the particularly harsh pre-trial detention conditions.

The court found S.A. guilty of sexual interference and sexual assault against his niece, D.D., who was four years old at the time of the alleged incident.

The decision turned on the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s evidence, which the court found to be internally consistent, age-appropriate, and corroborated by peripheral evidence.

The court rejected the defendant’s denial as not credible and found that the complainant’s one instance of fabrication did not undermine her overall reliability.

The verdict was based on a careful application of the reasonable doubt standard and the law on assessing the evidence of child witnesses.

The court considered a motion by the defendant to compel the plaintiff to attend two defence medicals and to permit late service of expert reports in a motor vehicle accident case.

The court found the defendant's explanation for delay unreasonable and dismissed the motion, except for allowing late service of a neurology report, as the plaintiff did not oppose that part.

The court emphasized the importance of timely expert report exchange and the consequences of litigation strategy that delays compliance with the rules.

The appellant, Karanjot Parhar, appealed his eight-month custodial sentence for offences related to a car theft ring, arguing that the sentencing judge failed to consider credit for time spent on restrictive pretrial bail (Downes credit).

The court found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by not addressing Downes credit, and that this error impacted the sentence.

After reviewing the facts and the length and restrictiveness of the appellant’s pretrial bail, the court reduced the sentence to five months in custody, dismissing the Crown’s cross-appeal for a longer sentence.

This decision concerns an anti-SLAPP motion brought by Pierre Roy, a student and local resident, against Sheridan Retail Inc., a developer redeveloping Sheridan Mall in Mississauga.

The developer sued Roy for defamation, inducing breach of contract, interference with economic relations, and trespass after he raised environmental, social, and safety concerns about the redevelopment.

The court found the lawsuit to be a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) aimed at silencing Roy’s public expression.

The court dismissed the developer’s claim, refused to allow the developer to “prune” its claim to trespass only, and awarded Roy $25,000 in damages and full-indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs, Lucia Derenzis and Joshua Da Silva, brought a motion under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for production of records held by the License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) in relation to their constitutional challenge to Ontario’s no-fault auto insurance scheme.

The records included adjudicators’ notes, draft decisions, and over 400 emails.

The LAT and Tribunals Ontario opposed production, citing deliberative secrecy and solicitor-client privilege.

Justice Mandhane found the records relevant and necessary to the constitutional challenge, and ordered production except for those protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The decision addresses the limits of deliberative secrecy and the necessity of evidence for constitutional litigation.

This decision arises from an uncontested family law trial following the striking of the respondent father’s pleadings for persistent non-compliance with disclosure and support obligations.

The court imputes income to the father, orders lump sum retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, grants an unequal division of net family property, and authorizes the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court declines to order the sale of corporate property not specifically pleaded.

The decision is notable for its detailed application of adverse inference, imputation of income, and the use of lump sum support to address enforcement concerns where the payor has absconded.

This decision addresses a high-conflict family law dispute involving allegations of intimate partner violence (IPV), child and spousal support, parenting time, and property division.

The court found a pattern of psychological, sexual, physical, and financial abuse by the father, and adopted a restorative approach to parenting orders, emphasizing the children's best interests, stability, and the need for therapeutic interventions.

The mother was granted sole decision-making authority (except for extracurriculars), and the father was ordered to pay retroactive and ongoing support.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of the impact of IPV on family dynamics and the application of restorative justice principles in family law.

The Crown applied under section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for Lindsay Smith, a key witness and former intimate partner of the accused, to testify via closed circuit television (CCTV) in a trial for failing to remain at the scene of an accident causing death.

The application was supported by evidence from a Victim Witness Services Worker, who described Ms. Smith’s anxiety and safety concerns.

The defence opposed, arguing Ms. Smith was no longer intimidated.

The court granted the application, finding that testifying by CCTV would facilitate a full and candid account and was in the interests of justice, especially given the context of intimate partner violence and the need to encourage survivor participation in the justice process.

The court declared Glycobiosciences Inc. and Kevin Drizen vexatious litigants under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The decision reviews a lengthy history of litigation by Glyco and Drizen, noting repeated unsuccessful actions, disregard for adverse rulings, and failure to pay costs.

The court imposed restrictions on their ability to commence or continue proceedings in Ontario without leave, and stayed all ongoing matters.

The reasons also address the legal test for vexatious litigant status and the balancing of access to justice with the need to protect the court system from abuse.

The Applicant Father sought an order for the immediate return of the five-year-old child to Brazil under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, alleging wrongful retention by the Respondent Mother in Canada.

The child, a dual Canadian and Brazilian citizen, had lived primarily in Brazil but had been residing and attending school in Canada since September 2023.

The court dismissed the Hague Application, finding that the child was habitually resident in Canada immediately prior to the alleged abduction.

The decision emphasized a child-focused approach to determining habitual residence, consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and rejected the Father's claim that the parents intended to return to Brazil permanently.

The defendant/father moved for costs after the plaintiff/mother discontinued her civil action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and battery.

The civil action was launched after the mother filed a motion to change in family court seeking to relocate with the child, which the father opposed.

The court found the civil action unnecessary and duplicative, as the claim for damages should have been made within the family law proceeding.

Despite the mother's claims of being threatened and impecunious, the court found no supporting evidence for these assertions.

The father's Bill of Costs was deemed reasonable.

The court ordered the mother to pay $4000 in costs to the father.