Robert L. Maranger

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay.

The court applied the framework established in R. v. Jordan, calculating the total delay and deducting defence-attributable delay.

The court found that, after attributing 7 months of delay to the defence, the total delay fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court matters.

Alternatively, even if the delay exceeded the ceiling, the case presented exceptional transitional circumstances due to its complexity and multi-accused nature, justifying a trial on the merits.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The defendants, Lakehead University and Gordon Hayman, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim without leave to amend.

The plaintiff, a PhD graduate, sued the university and his professor for breach of contract and negligence, alleging unreasonable delays in dissertation review.

The court granted the motion, striking the claim without leave to amend, on the basis that disputes between students and universities regarding academic matters are not subject to breach of contract or tort claims.

The applicants, Valdrin Basha and Anton Dokaj, jointly charged with drug and firearms offences, sought a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay.

Applying the framework established in R. v. Jordan, the court found that the total delay for Basha (29 months and 10 days) and Dokaj (28 months) fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court matters.

The court determined that neither applicant demonstrated that the case took "markedly longer to conclude than it should have" or that the delay caused significant prejudice beyond the inherent nature of the charges.

The court also rejected Dokaj's argument regarding severance, finding that trying the co-accused together was in the interests of justice due to overlapping evidence and the risk of inconsistent verdicts.

Both applications for a stay of proceedings were dismissed.

The plaintiff tenant brought an action against the defendant landlord for wrongful termination of a commercial lease for a dry cleaning business.

The landlord brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and for judgment on its counterclaim for damages.

The court found that the tenant was on a month-to-month tenancy and had breached the lease by failing to comply with regulations governing dry cleaning businesses.

The court held that the lease was lawfully terminated, dismissed the plaintiff's claim, and granted the landlord's counterclaim for damages, reducing the claim for rent arrears.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the statement of defence and dismiss the counterclaim of the subject defendants due to their failure to pay prior costs awards and answer undertakings from discoveries.

The court declined to strike the pleadings immediately, opting instead to give the defendants one final opportunity to comply.

The court ordered a stay of proceedings until the defendants pay the outstanding costs and answer the undertakings by specified deadlines, failing which their pleadings will be struck without further notice.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter and, during the sentencing hearing, sought to bring a Charter application for declaratory relief and damages under s. 24(1) due to his treatment in pre-trial solitary confinement.

The court declined to hear the application, ruling that a criminal sentencing hearing is not the appropriate forum for a complex civil damages claim, which should instead be pursued in the civil courts.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 48.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to conduct examinations for discovery of the defendant after the trial record had been filed.

The plaintiff argued that discovery was not conducted earlier due to a belief that liability would not be contested, or alternatively, due to inadvertence.

The court applied the flexible approach from BNL Entertainment Inc. v. Ricketts, finding that a brief discovery would not delay the scheduled trial or prejudice the defendant.

The motion was granted, but no costs were awarded as the motion was necessitated by the plaintiff's counsel.

The plaintiffs, former employers of the defendant, brought a motion for summary judgment to set aside a conveyance of RRSPs made by the defendant.

The defendant, who had embezzled over $688,000 from the plaintiffs, transferred approximately $206,000 into a creditor-proof segregated mutual fund prior to the discovery of the fraud, her conviction, and subsequent bankruptcy.

The court applied the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, finding that the defendant's transfer of stolen money into a creditor-proof fund, followed by bankruptcy, constituted a fraudulent conveyance.

The court inferred intent to defraud from the circumstances, despite no direct evidence of the defendant's awareness that the fraud was about to be discovered at the time of transfer.

The motion was granted, ordering the RRSPs to be transferred back to a general fund for execution by the plaintiffs.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a noting of default and to allow the filing of a statement of defence.

The defendants had missed the extended deadline to file their defence by one day and were noted in default.

The plaintiffs refused to consent to setting aside the default unless the defendants waived a limitation period defence.

The court found that the default should be set aside, noting that both sides were responsible for the delay in moving the matter forward.

The motion was granted, with the defendants ordered to pay $1,500 in costs to the plaintiffs.

The Crown applied for a writ of certiorari and mandamus to review a preliminary inquiry judge's decision to discharge the accused on a sexual assault count.

The preliminary inquiry judge had found insufficient evidence to establish that the offence, which involved anal intercourse, was initiated in Ontario and completed in Quebec, thereby denying Ontario jurisdiction.

The Superior Court, applying the standard of review for non-committal orders, determined that the preliminary inquiry judge's decision was based on an insufficiency of evidence, not a jurisdictional error.

As such, the decision was not susceptible to judicial review, and the Crown's application was dismissed.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a successful summary judgment motion brought by the defendants.

The defendants sought $45,380.73 in costs, while the plaintiff argued for $9,000.

The court fixed costs at an all-inclusive sum of $17,500, payable forthwith by the plaintiff to the defendants.

The decision considered factors under Rule 57.01(1), a Rule 49 offer, and the principle from Boucher v. Public Accountant Council for Ontario that costs should be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, rather than solely reflecting the successful litigant's actual incurred costs.

The accused, Yaqoub Ali, was charged with 10 counts related to a shooting at a mall.

The central issue was the identity of the shooter, referred to as "Superman" due to his attire.

The victim did not cooperate with the police.

The court relied on surveillance video evidence, the corroborated testimony of one eyewitness (Adam Kilmartin), and circumstantial evidence from the accused's cell phone, including text messages indicating a dispute with the victim and photographs showing the accused wearing a hat similar to the shooter's.

Despite inconsistencies in other eyewitness accounts, the cumulative effect of the evidence led the court to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the shooter.

Yaqoub Ali was found guilty.

This criminal trial concerned a shooting incident at a busy mall.

The accused, Yaqoub Ali, was charged with multiple counts related to the shooting.

The central issue was the identification of the shooter, who was referred to as "Superman" based on surveillance video.

The court relied on a combination of surveillance video evidence, corroborated eyewitness testimony, and evidence extracted from the accused's cell phone (including text messages and photos) to establish the identity of the shooter beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found guilty.

This was a motion for summary judgment by eight of the named defendants (six holding companies and two individual directors) in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendants sought to dismiss claims against them, arguing they were not 'common and related employers' and that the corporate veil should not be pierced for the individual directors.

The court applied principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin for summary judgment motions, and considered the common employer doctrine and personal liability of corporate officers.

The motion was granted, dismissing the claims against the individual directors due to no evidence of fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or want of authority, and against the holding companies as they did not exercise effective control over the plaintiff's employment.

Following a five-day child protection trial where the court's judgment mirrored the respondent mother's formal offer to settle, the mother sought costs against the Children's Aid Society.

The court noted that an award of costs against a Children's Aid Society should be the exception, not the rule, to avoid deterring child welfare professionals from protecting children.

Finding that the Society did not act unreasonably or in bad faith but rather out of an abundance of caution, the court declined to award costs.

Following a trial concerning a failed real estate transaction, the vendor sought damages for the difference between the agreed purchase price and the eventual resale price after the purchasers refused to close.

The purchasers successfully resisted the vendor’s $100,000 claim and obtained partial recovery on their counterclaim.

In this addendum and costs decision, the court determined the successful purchasers were entitled to costs under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Applying the fairness and reasonableness principles from appellate authority, the court fixed costs at $30,000 all-inclusive payable by the unsuccessful vendor.

The court also clarified that a $1,000 deposit held by the real estate brokerage was to be returned to the purchasers as part of the rescission of the contract.

Following a motion in which the plaintiff obtained an amendment to pleadings, the court considered written submissions on the issue of costs.

The court determined that although the plaintiff was successful on the amendment motion, the timing of the motion weighed against awarding costs.

Referring to reasons given in the earlier endorsement, the court concluded that the circumstances did not justify a costs award.

Accordingly, the court ordered that there be no order as to costs.

A vendor sued purchasers for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale after they refused to close on a residential property.

The purchasers discovered before closing that the property had been constructed on top of a discontinued landfill site and alleged negligent misrepresentation in the vendor’s Seller Property Information Statement (SPIS).

The court held that once a vendor completes an SPIS, the doctrine of caveat emptor does not protect misleading answers.

The vendor’s responses regarding environmental contamination and landfill activity were misleading and constituted negligent misrepresentation.

The purchasers were entitled to rescind the agreement and recover certain expenses incurred in reliance on the misrepresentation.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend the statement of claim in an action against a condominium corporation arising from water infiltration into a condominium unit.

The proposed amendments expanded the claim from a single water event to ongoing infiltration issues and added claims for breach of fiduciary duty and oppression under the Condominium Act.

The defendant opposed the amendments on limitation, pleading sufficiency, and abuse of process grounds.

The court applied Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and held that any prejudice could be compensated through costs or adjournment.

Leave to amend was granted, with terms allowing the defendant to file a fresh defence and conduct further discovery.

The Crown applied under Criminal Code forfeiture provisions seeking an order that $39,680 seized from a residence be forfeited as proceeds of crime following the respondent’s conviction for offences connected to a drug trafficking organization.

The respondent argued the funds belonged to his parents, who were innocent third parties, and sought the return of the money to them.

The court held that although circumstantial evidence could support an inference that the funds were proceeds of crime, credible testimony from the respondent’s parents provided an equally plausible explanation that the money represented long-term household savings.

The Crown therefore failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the funds were proceeds of crime.

The court found the parents were lawful owners and innocent of complicity and ordered the funds returned to them under s. 462.41(3) of the Criminal Code.