Robert Lepore

The applicant, the wife of an incapacitated man, sought appointment as guardian of his person and property.

The respondents, the incapacitated man's siblings and mother, opposed the application and sought to have one of the siblings appointed as guardian instead.

The court found that the applicant and her daughter were in a closer relationship with the incapacitated person than his siblings, and that the sibling proposed as guardian had a conflict of interest regarding disputed property ownership.

The court appointed the applicant and her daughter as joint guardians.

The decision concerns two motions to oppose the confirmation of a report of Associate Justice Robinson regarding construction lien and contract claims arising from a Toronto hospital project.

The court confirms the report, finding no error in the associate judge’s analysis of whether Kelson had a direct contract with Sjostrom, the effect of a change order on Amar’s scope of work, and the sufficiency of evidence for claimed damages.

The court upholds the associate judge’s findings that Kelson breached its contract with Amar but that Sjostrom failed to prove its damages, and dismisses both motions.

The decision concerns two motions to oppose the confirmation of a report of Associate Justice Robinson regarding construction lien and contract claims arising from a Toronto hospital project.

The court confirms the report, finding no error in the associate judge’s analysis of whether Kelson had a direct contract with Sjostrom, the effect of a change order on Amar’s scope of work, and the sufficiency of evidence for claimed damages.

The court upholds the associate judge’s findings that Kelson breached its contract with Amar but that Sjostrom failed to prove its damages, and dismisses both motions.

This decision addresses costs and pre-judgment interest following an eight-day trial involving two separate actions.

In the first action, Sjostrom Sheet Metal Ltd.'s lien and contract claims against Geo A. Kelson Company Limited were dismissed, leading to Kelson being awarded costs.

In the second action, A. Amar and Associates Ltd. successfully proved its contract claim against Kelson, resulting in Amar being awarded judgment and costs.

The court fixed Kelson's costs against Sjostrom at $123,270.92 and Amar's costs against Kelson at $173,025.17.

Pre-judgment interest for Amar was set from the date its statement of claim was issued, emphasizing that issues are framed by pleadings.

The decision applied principles of proportionality and offers to settle, awarding substantial indemnity costs from the date of relevant offers.

The accused stood trial for multiple offences against his former wife, including dangerous driving, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, mischief, and sexual assault.

The charges arose from three separate incidents: a dispute over a car, a physical struggle over a cell phone, and an alleged sexual assault.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding the car incident and sexual assault to be deliberately exaggerated or false, resulting in acquittals for dangerous driving, assault with a weapon, and sexual assault.

However, based on the accused's own evidence and corroborating video, the court found him guilty of assault causing bodily harm and mischief, rejecting his claims of defence of property and self-defence as his use of force was unreasonable in the circumstances.

The moving party (respondent in the main application) brought a motion to strike the responding party's family law application due to his failure to pay two outstanding costs orders.

The responding party admitted non-compliance but sought an adjournment of the trial to allow him time to pay.

The court declined to strike the application, noting that parenting issues required both parties' participation.

However, the court found it would be unjust to allow the responding party to force the moving party to incur costs for a responding expert report while he remained in breach of court orders.

The court ordered that the responding party could not rely on an expert witness report for his spousal support defence unless he paid the outstanding costs orders.

Following two summary judgment motions in a family law proceeding, the respondent sought approximately $115,000 in costs based on offers to settle.

The applicant argued the amount was grossly excessive and disproportionate.

The court applied the principles of proportionality, fairness, and reasonableness, significantly reducing the claimed hours and disallowing time docketed by an unidentified law clerk.

The respondent was awarded a total of $30,000 in costs inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The accused, V.Z., facing sexual assault charges, brought a Stage 1 application under Criminal Code sections 276, 278.92, and 278.93 to admit evidence of prior sexual activity and text messages with the complainant.

The defence argued this evidence was relevant to the issues of consent and honest but mistaken belief in consent, particularly regarding a pattern of consensual role-playing and rough sexual behaviour.

The Crown opposed, arguing insufficient detail and that past consent does not imply future consent.

The court dismissed the application regarding actual consent but granted a Stage 2 hearing (voir dire) for the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent, finding the proposed evidence capable of being admissible for that purpose, provided a proper affidavit from the accused is filed.

The plaintiff commenced an action against his real estate agent and brokerage, alleging the agent forged his signature on a waiver of a home inspection condition.

This same allegation of forgery had been previously raised by the plaintiff and rejected by a judge in an earlier application brought by the vendor to keep the plaintiff's deposit.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim as an abuse of process and barred by issue estoppel.

The court granted the motion, finding that the core issue was identical to the one already decided, the plaintiff had the opportunity to appeal the prior decision but did not, and allowing the claim to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The moving party brought a motion for summary judgment to uphold the validity of a marriage contract.

The responding party sought to set aside the contract under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act, alleging non-disclosure of the value of a property, failure to understand the contract, and duress.

The court found that the responding party had independent legal advice, knew of the property's existence, and failed to establish any grounds for setting aside the agreement.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the marriage contract was declared valid and enforceable.

The applicant, charged with domestic assault and related offences, sought a bail variation under s. 520 of the Criminal Code to remove a no-contact condition and return to the family home.

The complainant supported the variation and recanted her initial allegations.

The court dismissed the application, citing a history of violence, the use of a weapon, a previous bail breach, and the transparent nature of the recantation.

The court emphasized the need to protect the complainant and maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, while ordering an expedited trial to mitigate the hardship of the bail conditions.

This decision addresses claims of privilege over documents in an ongoing action for the assessment of a solicitor's account.

The applicant solicitor sought full disclosure of a draft report from SB Partners Corporate Finance, a memorandum from W. Grant Buchan-Terrell, and accounts of Ray Niejadlik, which the respondent client had redacted.

The court found that the client had waived privilege over the SB Partners report by intending to use disclosed portions to challenge the solicitor's work, and ordered its full disclosure.

For the Buchan-Terrell memorandum, some redactions were maintained due to litigation strategy or unrelated advice, while others were ordered disclosed.

Most of Ray Niejadlik's invoices were ordered disclosed, as claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege failed, and the Wigmore criteria for case-by-case privilege were not met, except for the April 2009 invoice which was protected by solicitor-client privilege due to counsel's involvement.

The client's request for a sealing order was denied.

The applicant, charged with fraud and breach of trust, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging an unreasonable strip search following her arrest.

The court found that the police conducted the strip search without reasonable and probable grounds and in an unreasonable manner, failing to adhere to the principles established in R. v. Golden.

The search was deemed routine, degrading, lacked proper documentation, and was conducted without adequate privacy, exacerbated by a s. 10(b) Charter breach during questioning.

Given the systemic nature of the violations and the severe impact on the applicant, a stay of proceedings was granted as the only adequate remedy.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence of two years less a day imposed on a guilty plea to fraud.

The respondent, a tax return preparation business operator, had added false business loss claims to 37 clients' tax returns for 2009-2012, resulting in a potential federal tax revenue loss of $488,178.37, from which he personally benefited by $96,946.

The sentencing judge imposed house arrest for eight months, followed by an eight-month curfew, three years of probation, and a fine of $96,946 (with $70,000 payable during the conditional sentence).

The Crown sought a two-year custodial sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred by prioritizing the respondent's continued employment and ability to pay the fine over principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding the sentence was not manifestly unfit and that the sentencing judge properly considered all relevant principles.

This is a judicial interim release (bail) hearing for an accused charged with conspiracy to commit firearms trafficking as part of Project Sizzle.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused, a 30-year-old with a significant criminal history including multiple breaches of recognizance and prior firearm-related convictions, proposed release with two sureties and electronic monitoring.

The court found the proposed sureties inadequate, the accused's history of breaching court orders concerning, and the Crown's evidence of conspiracy compelling based on intercepted communications.

The court detained the accused on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of assault against his wife and daughter, and brought an application to adduce fresh evidence consisting of bank records and travel documents.

The court dismissed the fresh evidence application, finding the evidence was not relevant to a decisive issue, could not reasonably be expected to affect the result, and could have been adduced at trial with due diligence.

On the conviction appeal, the court rejected the appellant's arguments that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, applied uneven scrutiny to credibility, or failed to properly apply the W.(D.) principles.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with failing or refusing to provide a suitable sample of breath into an approved screening device (ASD) at a RIDE checkpoint.

The Crown alleged the defendant deliberately avoided providing a proper sample through stalling tactics and physical avoidance.

The defendant testified he attempted to comply but felt intimidated by the officer's aggressive presentation of the device.

The court found the Crown failed to prove the defendant's mens rea (guilty intent) beyond a reasonable doubt, noting the officer provided insufficient opportunities, moved too quickly to arrest, and dismissed a bona fide offer to provide another sample after arrest.

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed in the Ontario Court of Justice after pleading guilty to stunt driving under the Highway Traffic Act.

The parties had made a joint submission proposing a $2,000 fine and probation without a driving suspension.

The sentencing judge rejected the joint submission and instead imposed the fine together with a 12‑month driving suspension, concluding the proposed sentence was manifestly inadequate given the admitted conduct of driving approximately 190 km/h and weaving through traffic.

On appeal, the court held that the sentencing judge properly recognized the high threshold for rejecting joint submissions and provided counsel an opportunity to make further submissions.

The court found no error of law and declined to interfere with the sentence.