Robyn M. Ryan Bell

The applicant, charged with impaired and dangerous operation causing death and bodily harm following a boating accident, sought a stay of proceedings alleging abuse of process.

The Crown had preferred a direct indictment after a preliminary inquiry had been scheduled.

The applicant argued this was done for an oblique motive to deprive him of discovery.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet the notoriously high evidentiary threshold required to displace the presumption that the Crown exercised its core prosecutorial discretion in good faith.

The applicant municipality sought a permanent injunction to enforce its Zoning, Property Standards, and Yard Maintenance By-laws against the respondents.

The respondents were using a property zoned for prime agriculture to house multiple recreational vehicles, trailers, and a cinderblock shed, and had accumulated garbage and debris.

The court found clear breaches of the by-laws and granted the permanent injunction, ordering the removal of the trailers and debris.

In an application to prove a lost will, the applicant and respondents brought competing motions.

The respondents sought a Mareva injunction, Norwich orders, an accounting, and to compel cross-examinations of the applicant and a non-party witness.

The applicant moved to set aside certificates of non-attendance and prohibit further motions.

The court set aside the certificates of non-attendance, finding the respondents failed to exercise reasonable diligence in scheduling the cross-examinations.

The court dismissed the respondents' requests for a Mareva injunction and Norwich orders, finding no evidence of a real risk of asset dissipation or wrongdoing, though it granted limited documentary discovery from a non-party law firm.

Costs of $40,000 were awarded to the applicant.

The plaintiff collections agency, as assignee of an alleged construction-material debt, moved for summary judgment for breach of contract and to set aside a property transfer as a fraudulent conveyance.

The court held there were genuine issues requiring a trial, including whether any post-September 2023 supply contract existed, whether the defendants ordered or received the disputed materials, and whether one defendant was party to any such agreement.

The evidentiary record raised significant credibility disputes, including unsigned delivery documentation, disputed invoices, and contested notice evidence, making fair adjudication on a paper record inappropriate under Rule 20.04 principles.

On the fraudulent conveyance claim under s. 2 of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, the court found the necessary intent findings could not be made summarily and that alleged badges of fraud required trial-level fact-finding.

The summary judgment motion was dismissed.

The appellant, a self-represented former lawyer, appealed a family law trial judgment, arguing the trial judge erred by refusing to admit his late-served documents into evidence.

The Divisional Court found no procedural unfairness, noting the appellant failed to comply with case management directions and offered inadequate explanations for the delay.

The court also observed that the appellant failed to demonstrate how the excluded documents would have materially changed the trial's outcome.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an application challenging the validity of a will.

The applicant sought to set aside the deceased's 2016 will on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and improper execution.

The court dismissed the application, finding the will was duly executed and that the applicant's allegations were unsupported.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs, which were awarded on the basis of the respondent's settlement offers and the applicant's reprehensible litigation conduct in making unfounded allegations of fraud and undue influence.

Three consolidated actions arising from a joint venture between 2264052 Ontario Inc. and HarbourEdge Realty Administration Corporation for the development of 14 homes at Brockwoods subdivision in Brockville, Ontario, and a mortgage advanced by HarbourEdge Mortgage Investment Corporation.

The joint venture was terminated in August 2015.

The court determined that the joint venture's net profit was $838,865, entitling the plaintiff to $419,432.50 (50% share).

The court rejected the defendant's deduction of $561,270 for land contribution and excluded $235,902 in construction costs not intended to be borne by the joint venture.

The court awarded the mortgage lender $370,000 principal but rejected claims for $154,552.62 in expenses and $118,100 in fees.

Prejudgment interest was awarded at 10% per annum, compounding semi-annually, on both awards, with set-off ordered between the actions.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Aaron Bell, ordering specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) for a unique mixed-use property.

The court found that Donald Bisaillon, the seller, had waived the solicitor review condition in the APS or, alternatively, could not rely on it in bad faith to avoid the sale.

The court held that specific performance was the appropriate remedy due to the property's unique qualities and the inadequacy of damages.

The appellant, Justin Williams, appealed his conviction for assault, arguing that the trial judge made unreasonable findings of fact or credibility and misapprehended his evidence.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge’s findings were open to him on the record, that there was no palpable and overriding error, and that the trial judge provided comprehensive reasons for rejecting the defences of consent and self-defence.

The appeal was dismissed.

This decision resolves an application for directions regarding the administration and distribution of the estate of Yvonne Chieffallo.

The court confirms Elisa Chieffallo and Patrick Briggs as estate trustees, orders equal distribution of the residue among the named beneficiaries, and determines that certain assets (the Valley Drive property, Courtyard Crescent property, and a BMO account) do not form part of the estate.

The court also addresses the doctrine of renunciation and intermeddling, the presumption of resulting trust, and the allocation of proceeds from the sale of a vehicle.

The court considered charges of laundering proceeds of crime, making false statements in income tax returns, tax evasion, and obtaining unentitled tax refunds or credits against Peter Pavlovich Jr. and Jessica Sauve.

The Crown alleged that the accuseds’ net worth exceeded their reported income by over $200,000, and that unreported income was derived from drug trafficking and unreported construction work.

The defence presented evidence of substantial gifts and loans from family and friends as alternative sources of funds.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the unexplained funds were unreported income or proceeds of crime, and acquitted both accused on all charges.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision that declined to hear four health and safety grievances related to a COVID-19 outbreak at a correctional facility.

The Arbitrator had ruled the grievances were barred by issue estoppel and collateral attack because the union had previously sought orders from Ministry of Labour inspectors under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for the same issues but failed to appeal the inspectors' decisions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Arbitrator's application of issue estoppel and collateral attack was reasonable.

This costs endorsement addresses the appropriate scale and quantum of costs following the plaintiffs’ successful resistance to the Gamma defendants’ motion to quash a summons to witness.

The court declines to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no litigation conduct warranting sanction, and instead fixes partial indemnity costs at $12,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, to be paid by the Gamma defendants to the plaintiffs within 30 days.

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her catastrophic impairment designation and income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued that the Vice-Chair provided insufficient reasons, relied on issues not raised in the denial letters, denied her procedural fairness, and made unreasonable findings of fact.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application for judicial review, finding that the Vice-Chair provided comprehensive reasons, properly applied the 'but for' test for causation, afforded procedural fairness, and made reasonable findings based on the evidence.

The appellant purchased a wood chipper from the respondent vendor to use with his tractor.

Three years later, the tractor sustained damage while operating the wood chipper.

The appellant sued the vendor and manufacturer for breach of contract, breach of the implied condition of fitness for purpose under the Sale of Goods Act, and negligent misrepresentation, alleging the wood chipper was incompatible with his tractor.

The Small Claims Court dismissed the action, finding the appellant failed to prove the wood chipper caused the damage.

On appeal, the Divisional Court affirmed the trial judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in her reliance on lay opinion evidence or her factual findings.

The court considered whether third party claims for contribution and indemnity brought by the defendants against Maurizio Martignano were barred by the 15-year ultimate limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that, pursuant to section 18 of the Act, the limitation period for such claims commences on the date the defendants were served with the statement of claim, not the date of the original act or omission.

As a result, the third party claims were not statute-barred and the motions to dismiss were denied.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that the respondent insured was not barred by the two-year limitation period from claiming income replacement benefits.

The Tribunal had concluded that the insurer's termination letter was not a clear and unequivocal denial because it left open the possibility of future benefits upon submission of an updated disability certificate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's interpretation of the letter as ambiguous was both reasonable and correct.

The court also upheld the Tribunal's refusal to extend the time for the insurer's reconsideration request.

The Attorney General of Canada applied for a further detention order under section 490(3) of the Criminal Code in relation to items seized from the respondent, Mohammed Ehteshamul Huq, during an investigation into alleged fraud and related offences involving the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS).

The court reviewed the complexity of the investigation, the progress made, and the need for continued detention.

While recognizing the investigation's complexity, the court limited the further detention period to five months, until April 3, 2025, rather than the nine or twelve months sought by the applicant.

Several moving parties sought leave to appeal decisions of Dineen J. and Dow J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal brought by Nantu Kumar Ghosh, Christian Levasseur, and Tinku Ghosh because they were filed past the deadline without any request for an extension of time, and in some cases relied on unsworn materials or failed to explain the basis for leave.

Costs were awarded to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, noting that the responding party did not seek costs or file a costs outline.