Renu J. Mandhane

The Debtor (2184698 Ontario Inc.) brought a motion seeking to stop the court-appointed Receiver's sale process of a mortgaged property and for a declaration that the Receiver breached its duties under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Debtor alleged deficiencies in the listing price and asymmetrical information sharing.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no breach of the Receiver's duty to act in good faith and in a commercially reasonable manner.

The court held that the Receiver's actions, including the listing price based on appraisals and consultation with the Lender, were appropriate and in the best interests of all stakeholders.

The motion was deemed premature, and a previously granted interlocutory injunction was vacated, allowing the sale process to proceed.

Costs were awarded against the Debtor.

The Respondent Father brought a motion seeking disclosure of the complete file from the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) to challenge its recommendations regarding decision-making responsibility and parenting time for the child.

The Applicant Mother opposed the motion, arguing privilege and privacy.

The court found that the Mother had waived any privilege or privacy interest by providing the records to the OCL and that the records were relevant and necessary for the Father to challenge the OCL's findings.

The Father's motion for disclosure was granted, and the Mother was ordered to pay costs.

Nicholas Poku was convicted of possessing 1.347 kg of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a 10-year sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence of two years, citing Mr. Poku's first-time offender status and strong rehabilitation prospects.

The court considered sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, and proportionality, balancing the gravity of the offence (large quantity of heroin, sophisticated scheme) against Mr. Poku's personal circumstances (first-time offender, strong community support, no prior criminal record).

The court rejected a conditional sentence, finding Mr. Poku's role more significant than a mere facilitator.

Ultimately, a penitentiary sentence of six years was imposed, along with mandatory ancillary orders, falling at the lower end of the range for similar offences due to mitigating personal factors.

The Co-operators General Insurance Company, successful in a prior application, sought substantial indemnity costs of $103,375.96 against Definity Insurance Company, an intervenor.

Definity argued for partial indemnity costs of $58,884.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity, citing Co-operators' own conduct, including late disclosure of key documents and a last-minute re-election to proceed by judge alone after initially seeking a jury trial, which unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings.

The court awarded $70,000 inclusive of costs, disbursements, and HST to Co-operators from Definity.

This motion addressed whether a final order concerning child parenting and jurisdiction should be set aside due to lack of notice to the paternal grandmother, who had de facto care and control of the child in India.

The court set aside the parenting-related provisions of the final order, finding that the paternal grandmother, as a person with care and control, should have been named as a party and received notice.

However, the court affirmed Ontario's jurisdiction over the parenting dispute, determining the child's habitual residence remained in Ontario at the commencement of the original application and that Ontario was the more appropriate forum under the "balance of convenience" test, despite the child residing in India.

The applicant sought a beneficial interest in a residential property owned by his parents (the respondents) based on the equitable doctrines of proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment.

The applicant claimed an oral agreement from 2005 to transfer title if he made mortgage payments and repaid the $100,000 downpayment.

The respondents admitted an oral agreement but asserted it expired in 2007 due to the applicant's failure to repay the downpayment by a May 2007 deadline, treating him as a long-term tenant.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove proprietary estoppel or unjust enrichment.

The judge preferred the respondents' evidence, concluding the oral agreement was time-limited and had elapsed, and that the applicant was merely a tenant who received the benefit of living in the home for a reasonable rent.

The Certificate of Pending Litigation on the property was lifted.

The plaintiff sought substantial costs following a jury trial where she was awarded modest damages for a motor vehicle accident, despite claiming over $1,000,000.

The defendant had made no monetary offer to settle prior to trial.

The court awarded the plaintiff $300,000 in costs, disbursements, and HST, reducing the plaintiff's requested amount due to proportionality and excessive counsel.

The judge criticized the defendant's "hardball" litigation strategy of offering zero, finding it unreasonable and wasteful of court resources, and emphasized that such conduct necessitated the trial.

This decision concerns costs arising from the Applicant/Father's successful motion for contempt against the Respondent/Mother for breaching a final parenting order.

The Mother was found in contempt in 2021, and penalties, including expanded parenting time for the Father, were ordered in 2024.

The Father sought $28,701 in costs, while the Mother sought $38,137.

The court awarded the Father $20,000 in costs, finding him to be the more successful party overall, despite his offer to settle being more favourable than the final order.

The court declined to set off the costs against child support obligations.

This ruling addresses motions brought by both the plaintiff and the defendant during a jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff moved to strike a jury question regarding contributory negligence, arguing a lack of reasonable evidence.

The defendant moved to strike or amend jury questions concerning past and future income loss, asserting insufficient particularization and speculative nature.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that there was reasonable evidence to allow all questions to proceed to the jury.

The judge determined that the jury could reasonably infer contributory negligence from the plaintiff's testimony and that sufficient evidence, including actuarial testimony and employment history, supported the income loss claims, even without specific retirement dates or exhaustive employment scenarios.

This is a costs decision following a four-day trial where the self-represented Mother was largely successful on issues of equalization, child support, and parental decision-making.

The Mother sought $95,000 in full-indemnity costs, while the self-represented Father pleaded impecuniosity.

The court exercised its broad discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Family Law Rules, finding the Mother was significantly more successful than her offers to settle and that the Father's litigation conduct was unreasonable and caused excessive delay, including late engagement, refusal of financial disclosure, and argumentative testimony.

While the Mother's legal fees were deemed reasonable, a $10,000 discount was applied for duplication due to a lawyer change.

The Mother was ultimately awarded $75,000 in substantial indemnity costs.

This judgment addresses outstanding issues from a long-standing family law application, including equalization of net family property, retroactive and ongoing child support, and decision-making authority for the parties' three daughters.

The court found no equalization payment was owed as both parties' net family property was zero at separation, but ordered the Father to reimburse the Mother $60,000 for post-separation adjustments.

The Father's income was imputed at $55,000 for 2012-2017 due to intentional under-employment, resulting in $92,498.47 in retroactive child support arrears.

For parenting, the Mother retained major decision-making authority but was ordered to consult the Father and list him as a secondary emergency contact, acknowledging his significant parenting time and abilities, while denying joint decision-making due to communication issues.

The Mother was awarded costs.

This case involved a dispute between neighbouring property owners, William Kranenburg (operating a campground) and Brice and Donna Grice (operating a farm), concerning a shared right-of-way (Laneway).

Kranenburg sued the Grices for nuisance due to gates and trees, seeking punitive damages.

The Grices counter-claimed that Kranenburg had overburdened the Laneway by changing his campground's use from a youth summer camp to a come-and-go trailer park and event space, seeking an injunction and damages for cut trees.

The court found that Kranenburg had indeed overburdened the Laneway, granting the Grices an injunction limiting the Laneway's use to its historical scope.

The court dismissed Kranenburg's nuisance claim against the Grices, finding no substantial interference.

The Grices' counter-claim for nuisance regarding cut trees was also dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

No damages were awarded to either party.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) applied for guardianship of property for Russell DeForest, an incapable 20-year-old receiving ODSP benefits.

While all parties agreed Russell was incapable, his mother, Ms. Kindred-DeForest, opposed the application, asserting she was managing his funds.

The PGT argued guardianship was necessary because Ms. Kindred-DeForest had not used accumulated funds for Russell's current benefit and had failed to access other available funding.

The court granted the PGT's application, finding it necessary to ensure Russell could access his funds for a decent quality of life.

The respondent moved for the sale of the matrimonial home, which the parties owned as joint tenants.

The applicant resisted the sale and sought exclusive possession, arguing that the sale would breach a prior court order and prejudice her equalization claim.

The court dismissed the applicant's arguments, finding that the prior order did not indefinitely bar the sale motion and that holding proceeds in trust mitigated any risk to equalization.

The court also determined the applicant could find alternative housing despite her less favorable financial position compared to the respondent.

The motion for sale was granted, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs.

This decision concerns a costs award following a successful application for partition and sale.

The applicant, Sukhminder Sidhu, who was fully successful at trial, sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $43,000.

The respondents, Parminder and Amandeep Sidhu, who had brought an unsuccessful cross-application for unjust enrichment, did not make any submissions on costs.

The court, exercising its broad discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the claimed costs to be reasonable, considering factors such as the complexity of the matter, the conduct of the parties, and the reasonableness of counsel's hourly rate.

The respondents were ordered to pay the full amount jointly and severally.

This case addresses the equitable remedies of unjust enrichment and resulting trust within a multi-generational family living arrangement.

The applicant, Sukhminder Kaur Sidhu, initiated an application for partition and sale of a property.

The respondents, Parminder Sidhu and Amandeep Sidhu (her son and daughter-in-law), filed a cross-application claiming unjust enrichment and a 50% interest in the property based on their financial and in-kind contributions.

Sukhminder also sought a declaration that Amandeep held her 1% interest in the property on a resulting trust for Sukhminder.

The court found no unjust enrichment, concluding that both parties mutually benefited from pooling resources and the joint living situation, and that the contributions were part of an agreed-upon arrangement, thus negating any deprivation to the respondents.

The court further determined that Amandeep held her 1% interest in the property as a resulting trust for Sukhminder, as the transfer was solely to facilitate Sukhminder obtaining a mortgage, and Amandeep provided no adequate consideration for the beneficial interest.

D.G. was convicted by a jury of sexual assault.

This decision outlines the reasons for sentencing.

The court determined the facts for sentencing, finding that D.G. engaged in penetrative vaginal intercourse with the complainant while she was intoxicated to the point of unconsciousness.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the vulnerability of the victim, the opportunistic nature of the assault, and the significant psychological harm to the complainant.

Mitigating factors included D.G. being a first-time offender with prosocial antecedents and potential immigration consequences.

The court imposed a sentence of three years and six months imprisonment, consistent with the established range for similar offences.

This ruling addresses a proposed jury instruction in a sexual interference trial concerning the complainant's memory.

The defence challenged the complainant's credibility based on memory inconsistencies, arguing that judicial notice of traumatic memory principles should be limited.

The Crown sought an instruction to provide the jury with an alternative explanation for memory problems in traumatic contexts.

The court ruled to include the instruction, finding it necessary for the jury to properly evaluate the complainant's credibility and reliability, particularly regarding how traumatic experiences can affect perception and recall, and that such principles are properly subject to judicial notice based on established appellate case law.

The case involved charges of importing and possessing heroin for trafficking against two accused.

The central issue was the accused's knowledge of the parcel's contents.

The court applied the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule and found one accused guilty, while the other was acquitted due to lingering doubt regarding their knowledge.

This ruling addresses a voir dire during a judge-alone trial to determine the admissibility of electronic documents (Kijiji messages and email attachments) proffered by the defendant Sebastian Zamora.

Zamora, charged with importing and possessing heroin, sought to admit these documents as circumstantial evidence of his state of mind, arguing they provided context to cellular phone extractions relied upon by the Crown.

The Crown objected, arguing the documents were inadmissible hearsay and akin to prior consistent exculpatory statements.

The court found that the electronic documents met the authenticity and best evidence rules under the Canada Evidence Act, having been verified by a police officer.

The court ruled that the documents were admissible as circumstantial evidence, noting that their weight would be determined at the conclusion of all evidence, and that trial fairness required their admission to provide context to the Crown's evidence.