Robert E. Charney

The court issued an addendum to its Reasons for Sentence to clarify that the probation order and restitution order applied to both the individual and corporate respondents, Daniel Tiffin and Tiffin Financial Corporation (TFC).

The original reasons had used the pronoun "you" leading to ambiguity.

The court confirmed its intention to apply the non-custodial aspects of the sentence to both parties, exercising its jurisdiction to correct an accidental slip or omission.

K.S. was found guilty of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a 14-year-old complainant.

The court applied the Kienapple principle, staying the sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching charges, and entering a conviction for sexual interference.

The primary issue for sentencing was the appropriate custodial term, considering aggravating factors (sexual intercourse and oral sex) and mitigating factors (no criminal record, remorse, isolated incident, fault based on lack of due diligence regarding age).

The Crown sought a five-year penitentiary term, while the defence sought 12 months imprisonment plus probation.

The court imposed a sentence of 15 months imprisonment followed by two years probation, along with ancillary orders (DNA, SOIRA, firearms prohibition, communication prohibition), but declined a s. 161 order.

The defendant, Jasper Construction Corp., brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for breach of contract.

The plaintiff, N.K.P. Painting Inc., had a subcontract with Jasper Construction Ltd., but alleged Jasper Construction Corp. was also liable as an undisclosed principal, alter ego, assignee, or by novation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the factual issues regarding Jasper Construction Corp.'s liability were inextricably intertwined with the overall action against Jasper Construction Ltd. Granting partial summary judgment would not advance the goals of timeliness, affordability, and proportionality, and risked duplicative proceedings and inconsistent findings, especially given that both defendants shared counsel and key personnel.

Tiffin and TFC were convicted of trading in securities without registration, distributing securities without a prospectus, and trading while prohibited by an OSC order.

Tiffin solicited $700,000 in loans from clients, issuing promissory notes deemed securities.

The court considered aggravating factors, including Tiffin's position of trust, use of funds for luxury items, repeat offender status, and prior unpaid penalties, against mitigating factors such as client support letters, partial repayment, and lack of intent to defraud.

A financial penalty alone was deemed insufficient due to Tiffin's history of non-payment.

The court imposed a six-month custodial sentence on Tiffin, a two-year probation order on both Tiffin and TFC, and a restitution order for the outstanding principal amount of the notes.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend her statement of claim to add Paragon Protection Ltd. as a defendant, responsible for security at the mall where she slipped and fell.

The proposed defendant opposed, arguing the limitation period had expired.

The court considered the discoverability doctrine under the Limitations Act, 2002, and Rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate due diligence in discovering Paragon's involvement within the limitation period, as a security guard was present at the scene of the accident and identifiable.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to strike two separate but related Statements of Claim, alleging they failed to comply with Rule 25.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure by being excessively long, incomprehensible, and pleading evidence rather than concise material facts.

The court found the pleadings cluttered with extraneous or redundant verbiage, making them confusing and almost unintelligible.

Citing established jurisprudence on the importance of clear and concise pleadings, the motion was granted.

Both Statements of Claim were struck with leave for the plaintiffs to deliver fresh as amended statements of claim within thirty days, and costs were awarded to the defendants.

The applicant sought the release of $25,000 held in trust following a share purchase agreement, which the respondents withheld pending verification of the working condition of returned corporate property (software keys and cell phones).

The court dismissed the respondents' motion to transfer the application to a different venue due to non-compliance with practice directions and the interest of justice.

On the merits, the court found no express or implied term in the agreement authorizing the respondents to impose a unilateral holdback on the share purchase funds for property verification.

The court ordered the release of the remaining funds to the applicant upon the return of the specified corporate property.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking a Mareva injunction to restrain her daughter, a respondent, from depleting assets in two corporations controlled by the daughter.

The mother also sought an order for questioning of the daughter and corporate respondents.

The court dismissed the Mareva injunction, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a serious risk of asset dissipation or irreparable harm, noting that assets transferred between the daughter's wholly-owned corporations remained traceable.

The motion for questioning was adjourned pending a disclosure motion.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking and importing fentanyl, sought to admit a video recording of her exculpatory police statement under the *Edgar* exception.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the statement, made over five hours after her arrest and after two consultations with duty counsel, lacked the requisite spontaneity.

Additionally, the court rejected the applicant's request to redact portions of the interview relating to severed charges (possession of false identity documents), holding that if the statement were admissible for credibility and demeanour, the jury should view the entire unedited interview, applying the "bitter with the sweet" principle.

The applicant client disputed the terms of retainer with his former law firm, contending a contingency fee agreement (20-25%) while the solicitors claimed an hourly rate ($600/hour).

The court found that the solicitors failed to meet the heavy onus to prove the hourly rate agreement, given the lack of a written retainer and the client's understanding.

The court concluded that the client was retained on a contingency fee basis of 25% plus HST and disbursements.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs' claim sought to set aside an order of the Licence Appeal Tribunal and alleged various torts against the named defendants, arising from dealings with the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO).

The court found that RECO and its employees are not agents of the Crown, and the Crown is statutorily immune from liability for their acts or omissions.

Additionally, attempting to appeal or reverse a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision through a civil suit constitutes an abuse of process, as the proper avenue is an appeal to the Divisional Court on questions of law.

The action was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses costs following a successful paternity test motion brought by the respondent, Jose Vargas, which confirmed he was the biological father.

The applicant, Natasha Saunders, had opposed the paternity test and sought substantial costs, arguing her offer to settle was more favourable and the respondent's position on reimbursement of past child support was unreasonable given recent amendments to the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court awarded the applicant nominal costs, finding her offer on paternity consistent with the outcome, but also considering the respondent's self-represented status, the global nature of the applicant's costs claim, and the unnecessary proliferation of motions.

The decision also clarifies the application of Family Law Rule 24 regarding costs for earlier steps, particularly those before court officers without cost-ordering authority.

The applicant municipality sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision approving a zoning by-law passed by a neighbouring municipality to permit a major tourist destination, including a casino.

The applicant raised eight questions of law, arguing the OMB misinterpreted the Planning Act, regulations, and official plans regarding municipal council decisions, complete applications, holding provisions, and public works.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OMB's interpretations were reasonable and within its specialized planning expertise.

The applicant, charged with importing fentanyl and possession of false identity documents, brought two pre-trial applications.

First, she sought to sever the drug charges from the false identity document charges.

The court granted the severance, finding a real risk of prejudice and no factual or legal nexus between the two sets of charges.

Second, she sought disclosure of police records relating to other packages of fentanyl sent by the same exporter to different addresses in Ontario.

The court dismissed this application, holding that the records were third-party records requiring an O'Connor application, not first-party Stinchcombe disclosure.

The applicant sought specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property after the vendors refused to close unless the purchaser assumed an existing tenant.

The court held that the agreement unequivocally required vacant possession, the entire agreement clause barred reliance on alleged pre-contract discussions, and the vendors' refusal constituted anticipatory breach.

Applying the modern specific performance framework, the court found the property sufficiently unique to this purchaser, particularly given neighbourhood characteristics and affordability in a rapidly rising market, and held that damages would be inadequate.

Delay in commencing the application and alleged hardship to the vendors did not disentitle the applicant to equitable relief.

The appellant securities regulator appealed the dismissal of quasi-criminal charges arising from the respondents' solicitation of interest-bearing loans from existing clients while subject to a cease trade order.

The appeal turned on whether promissory notes secured against corporate property were 'securities' within the meaning of s. 1 of the Securities Act.

The court held that the trial judge erred by importing the American Reves 'family resemblance' test to create an extra-statutory exemption from Ontario's comprehensive securities regime.

Applying the modern approach to statutory interpretation, the court found the notes were 'notes or other evidence of indebtedness' under s. 1(1)(e), allowed the appeal, and substituted convictions.

The appellant, Deltro Electric Ltd., appealed a decision of the Electrical Safety Authority Review Panel confirming the application of a 'Wattage Based' inspection fee to its solar farm installations.

The appellant argued that the fee was invalidly enacted due to procedural defects, that certain projects were exempt from the Electrical Safety Code, and that the use of MC4 connectors did not constitute an electrical installation requiring inspection.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding that the ESA had cured any initial procedural defects by the time the fees were applied, that the projects required ESA connection authorizations under the Distribution System Code, and that connecting PV panels with MC4 connectors constituted work on an electrical installation subject to inspection.

The applicant father brought a motion for summary judgment to reduce his child support obligations and arrears, as well as his life insurance obligations, under a 2012 separation agreement.

He argued his income had decreased due to job loss following a period of incarceration.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing the applicant misrepresented his income when the agreement was signed and that genuine issues required a trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant failed to provide full financial disclosure and that a trial was necessary to determine the proper interpretation of the separation agreement and the applicant's actual income.

The Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal granting the respondent registration as a motor vehicle salesperson despite an outstanding arrest warrant in Alberta for failing to attend court on an assault charge.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision unreasonable, as it failed to properly consider the respondent's ongoing failure to comply with court orders as evidence that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a director's delegate's decision dismissing his request to vary or revoke a previous arbitration award that denied him statutory accident benefits.

The applicant argued that new medical reports diagnosing a traumatic brain injury constituted fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the director's delegate reasonably concluded that the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence and, in any event, did not address the functional eligibility criteria required for the benefits sought.