Robert J. Smith

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No order as to costs was made as the responding parties did not file costs outlines.

The defendant brought a motion requesting that its summary judgment motion be heard before the plaintiff's motion for certification of a class proceeding regarding the calculation of long-term disability benefits.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the motions should be heard together or certification first.

The court applied the factors from Canon v. Funds for Canada Foundation and determined that hearing both motions at the same time would be the fairest and most efficient manner of proceeding, avoiding potential delays and multiple appeals.

The defendant's motion was dismissed.

The Crown applied to have Jacques Rouschop declared a dangerous offender and sought an indeterminate sentence.

Rouschop, convicted of multiple sexual and violent offenses, conceded he met the criteria for a dangerous offender but argued for a lesser sentence with a Long Term Supervision Order.

The court, considering psychiatric evidence of high reoffending risk due to Antisocial and Narcissistic Personality Disorders and severe psychopathy, and Rouschop's continued violent and sexual conduct in custody, found no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public.

An indeterminate sentence was imposed, along with ancillary orders.

The plaintiffs, a franchisor group ("Tiny Hoppers"), brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of $500,000 and absolution from further payments, alleging the defendants (franchisees, "Dino & Kidz") breached a settlement agreement by failing to disassociate from the brand and making defamatory statements.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim and payment of $224,000, the balance owing under the settlement.

The court found that the defendants had taken reasonable steps to disassociate themselves and had not made defamatory or disparaging statements.

Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion was dismissed, and the defendants' counterclaim for the outstanding payment was granted.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to find the child in need of protection and to place her in extended Society care for the purpose of adoption.

The mother consented to the order, while the father opposed it.

The court found that the parents had a history of domestic violence and the father had not presented a viable plan of care.

Applying the test for summary judgment in child protection proceedings, the court concluded there was no genuine issue for trial, found the child in need of protection, and ordered her placed in extended care for adoption.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving, arguing that his Charter rights under s. 8 and s. 10(b) were breached and that the admission of breath samples tainted the trial judge's finding of impairment.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusion on the impaired driving charge was amply supported by overwhelming civilian and paramedic evidence, independent of the breath samples.

The court held it was unnecessary to address the alleged Charter breaches given the strength of the other evidence.

The plaintiff, Richcraft Homes Ltd., initiated an action against several defendants, including Urbandale Corporation, Urbandale Construction Limited, and Lawrence Weinstein, seeking declaratory relief for oppressive conduct, breach of contract, and punitive damages related to land development projects.

The defendants brought motions under Rule 21 to strike Richcraft's claims, arguing they failed to plead material facts supporting a reasonable prospect of success.

The court granted the motions, finding that Richcraft did not demonstrate compensable injury or a likelihood of threatened oppressive conduct, nor an independent actionable wrong for punitive damages.

Leave to amend was denied due to the absence of proposed amendments or supporting evidence.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, sale of the matrimonial home, and other incidental relief following a 28-year marriage.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home and the division of the respondent's pension as of the date of separation.

The court declined to impute income to the respondent on an interim basis, deferring the issue to trial.

Retroactive and ongoing interim spousal support were ordered based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, with credits given to the respondent for expenses paid towards the matrimonial home.

The applicant sought the appointment of an arbitrator pursuant to a co-tenancy agreement to resolve a dispute over the conveyance of residential lots.

The respondent opposed, arguing that the agreement's 'Applicable Law' clause, which attorned to the exclusive jurisdiction of Ontario courts, invalidated the arbitration clause.

The court held that the contract must be read as a whole, finding that the specific arbitration clause qualified the general applicable law clause.

The court appointed an arbitrator to determine the dispute.

During a dangerous offender hearing, the Crown sought to introduce new evidence alleging the offender sexually touched and choked two fellow inmates.

The defence opposed the admission, citing choice of counsel conflicts, delay, and lack of advance notice.

The court granted the Crown's request, ordering a voir dire with independent counsel for the offender to determine if the new allegations could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of two arbitration decisions regarding the calculation of payouts for unused sick days upon retirement.

The arbitrator found that the collective agreement required rounding up years of service for teachers with more than X.500 years, and prohibited rounding down for those with less.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and rejection of the board's past practice and estoppel arguments to be reasonable.

The plaintiff, an untitled spouse, sought partial summary judgment to declare a condominium corporation's lien and power of sale proceedings null and void against her, arguing she was not properly notified as required by the Family Law Act.

The court found that the condominium corporation failed to make reasonable inquiries to determine if the unit was a matrimonial home and to provide notice to the untitled spouse at her registered address before initiating lien and power of sale proceedings.

Consequently, the lien was deemed invalid against the plaintiff, and associated legal and collection costs were not recoverable from her.

The defendants, the Ottawa Police Services Board et al., brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the plaintiff's claim of negligent investigation.

The plaintiff, a 74-year-old Polish-speaking man with limited English, was arrested and charged with sexual assault and forcible confinement based on a complaint from an individual with a significant history of police contacts and dishonesty, which was not disclosed at the plaintiff's bail hearing.

The court found that while initial reasonable grounds for arrest might have existed, there were conflicting expert opinions regarding the police's standard of care in their subsequent and ongoing investigation.

Citing the Supreme Court's framework in Hyrniak v. Mauldin, the court determined that these genuine issues of fact, particularly the contentious expert evidence on causation and standard of care, required a trial.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and they were ordered to pay costs to the plaintiff.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of an eviction order granted by the Landlord and Tenant Board for the landlord's own use.

The tenant raised several grounds of appeal, including denial of legal representation, lack of jurisdiction, and bad faith.

The Divisional Court found that the appeal raised issues of fact rather than law, attempted to introduce new issues not raised before the Board, and was brought solely for the purpose of delay.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and the tenant was ordered to vacate the premises.

The applicant pharmacy sought judicial review of a decision by the executive officer of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care terminating its billing privileges under the Ontario Drug Benefit Program due to overbilling.

The pharmacy argued the executive officer only had the power to suspend, not terminate, privileges under the statute, and alleged procedural unfairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the executive officer's decision to revoke privileges was reasonable, within her authority, and procedurally fair.

Robert Barra and Shailesh Govindia were convicted of agreeing to bribe the Indian Minister of Civil Aviation under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

Barra, CEO of Cryptometrics US, retained Govindia to facilitate a $500,000 bribe for a facial recognition software contract with Air India, with potential for an additional $1.5 million.

Govindia, however, misappropriated the bribe funds, leading to the scheme's failure and no contract award.

The Crown sought 4 years for Barra and 3 years for Govindia, while the defence proposed 2 years for both.

Considering mitigating factors such as no prior criminal records, the unsuccessful nature of the bribe, and economic hardship, alongside aggravating factors like financial motivation and the seriousness of the offence, the court imposed a sentence of 2.5 years imprisonment for each offender.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a successful summary judgment motion brought by the defendants Nisco Inc. and HVL Ltd. against the plaintiffs.

Nisco had provided financing for a tow truck to Mark Pittuck, who was later seriously injured due to equipment failure.

Nisco's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the plaintiffs' action against it.

Nisco sought costs on a full indemnity basis, citing an indemnity clause in the lease agreement and an offer to settle.

The plaintiffs argued for lower costs, emphasizing their impecuniosity and the absence of reprehensible conduct.

The court, applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, awarded Nisco $15,000 for the summary motion, $5,000 for costs in the actions, and $5,000 for disbursements against the main plaintiffs, and $4,000 against Sandy Tennant, considering the complexity, importance, and reasonable expectations of the losing party, as well as the plaintiffs' impecuniosity.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and awarded damages by a jury.

The defendant brought a threshold motion arguing the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory requirement of a permanent serious impairment.

The court reviewed medical evidence showing the plaintiff suffered from chronic pain, depression, and cognitive deficits from a mild traumatic brain injury, which prevented him from completing high school or working.

The court found the injuries substantially interfered with his usual activities of daily living and were continuous and permanent.

The defendant's motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that her motor vehicle insurance policy was valid at the time of her accident, alleging she paid her broker in cash before cancellation.

The defendant insurer brought a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing the policy was properly cancelled for non-payment and that the plaintiff's claim for statutory accident benefits was statute-barred.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that a trial was necessary to assess the credibility of the plaintiff and her husband regarding the alleged cash payment, which constituted a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The accused applied for a mistrial due to the Crown's late disclosure of information, including an agreement not to use a witness's statements against him and email exchanges questioning the authenticity of an exhibit.

The court applied the Stinchcombe and Dixon principles on disclosure and the right to make full answer and defence.

The court found that while disclosure was late, the accused failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility that the late disclosure affected the trial's outcome or fairness, or impaired their ability to make full answer and defence.

The remedy granted was to prevent the Crown from calling reply evidence, including recalling the witness to change his testimony, thereby preserving the accused's tactical position.