Roger Chown

The plaintiffs, who were unsuccessful debtors in a prior action brought by the Royal Bank of Canada, commenced a new action in Owen Sound against RBC and Joseph Doria (the Operations Manager of the Milton Court House).

The plaintiffs challenged RBC's use of the simplified procedure in the original action and raised various complaints regarding the bank's accounting practices and enforcement of the judgment.

The court found that the statement of claim did not reveal any viable cause of action against either defendant and dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The accused was charged on an eight-count indictment with offences relating to his daughter, including assault, uttering threats to cause death, sexual touching, sexual assault, and trafficking cocaine.

The Crown withdrew one count and invited acquittal on another.

The trial proceeded with evidence from the complainant and the accused.

The court applied the W(D) test and found reasonable doubt on all remaining counts, resulting in acquittals on all charges.

The court found the complainant's evidence compelling but determined that the Crown had not met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on any of the remaining counts.

The court considered whether police infringed the accused’s rights under sections 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter by delaying the right to counsel and failing to promptly inform him of increased jeopardy after a search revealed drugs and a gun.

The court found breaches of both rights but concluded, after a Grant analysis, that the evidence should not be excluded.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The defendant Royal Bank of Canada filed a requisition under rule 2.1.01(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of the action.

The court determined under rule 2.1.01(6) that it may be appropriate to make an order dismissing or staying the action, and directed the registrar to give notice to the parties in Form 2.1B.

The endorsement outlines the procedures and timelines for written submissions by the parties in response to the notice, as set out in rules 2.1.01(7) through (10).

This decision interprets the will of William Archibald Stewart, focusing on the vesting and abatement of gifts of farm properties to his sons, Robert and Winfield, and the impact of subsequent events including the assignment of a mortgage to William’s widow, Edith, and her own testamentary dispositions.

The court addresses whether gifts vested at William’s death or Edith’s, the effect of the mortgage assignment, the abatement of gifts to pay estate liabilities, and related issues of constructive trust, unjust enrichment, and executor liability for tax consequences.

The court determined how to divide $406,000 in insurance settlement proceeds between a mother and son after a fire destroyed their family poultry processing plant.

The parties had rebuilt the plant using a combination of insurance, mortgages, and personal funds, but did not have a clear written agreement on how to divide any insurance settlement.

The court found that both parties contributed roughly equally to the reconstruction and ordered the insurance settlement to be divided equally.

Claims of unconscionability and unjust enrichment were rejected.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Bennington Financial Corp. against 2724112 Ontario Inc. and Christopher Graham for amounts owing under a commercial equipment lease.

The court found that the defendants' defences were fully answered by the plaintiff's evidence, including admissions of payment and execution of the lease, and that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court reserved on interest and costs, inviting written submissions.

The plaintiff sued the defendant surgeon for medical malpractice following a brachial plexus injury sustained during shoulder replacement surgery.

The sole issue was whether the plaintiff proved surgical negligence.

The court concluded that the injury was more likely than not the result of surgical negligence, specifically due to excessive force or prolonged stretch applied to the arm during the glenoid exposure phase of the surgery.

The court found for the plaintiff, dismissing the defendant's arguments regarding non-negligent causes and emphasizing that while a bad outcome alone does not prove negligence, the extreme rarity and nature of the injury provided strong circumstantial evidence of a breach of the standard of care.

The applicant, W.G., brought a motion to change spousal support, seeking its termination after 14 years of payments to the respondent, K.G. W.G. argued a material change in circumstances due to K.G.'s improved earning capacity and the extended duration of support.

K.G. opposed termination, arguing her health had not significantly improved and her income was insufficient.

The court found material changes in circumstances, including substantial income increases for both parties, K.G.'s improved health and earning capacity, and the termination of child support.

The court concluded that K.G. remained entitled to spousal support, particularly given the compensatory nature of the original award and W.G.'s significantly increased income.

However, the court determined it was appropriate to limit the support's duration and step down the quantum, exceeding the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines' global maximum due to K.G.'s ongoing partial disability and the causal connection between W.G.'s income increase and the marriage.

This decision addresses the division of proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned home following the breakdown of a common-law relationship.

The court determined that the parties engaged in a joint family venture from the time they obtained a joint line of credit.

Key issues included the treatment of the respondent's initial equity, CRA debts, the applicant's unsecured line of credit, and post-separation expenses and property value increases.

The court concluded that the increase in property value should be shared equally, while post-separation expenses were the sole responsibility of the respondent due to his exclusive use of the property and lack of cooperation in its sale.

The offender, Taran Hibma, was found guilty of criminal negligence causing death after inserting lit sparklers into a sleeping cabin, causing a fire that killed Genesis Young, 17.

The court considered principles of sentencing, including denunciation, general deterrence, and rehabilitation, particularly given the offender's youth and substance abuse issues.

Despite arguments for a conditional sentence, the court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately address denunciation and general deterrence, while also considering rehabilitation.

Hibma was sentenced to 18 months in custody followed by 18 months of probation with conditions aimed at addressing his substance abuse.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for $75,000, representing the cost incurred to extend the closing of a property they were purchasing, due to the defendants' failure to close on a related sale.

The defendants admitted breach of contract but disputed the remoteness and mitigation of damages.

The court applied principles of remoteness, particularly the Hadley v. Baxendale rule, and found that it was reasonably foreseeable for sellers to rely on proceeds from one sale to fund another, even if not explicitly communicated.

The court also found that the plaintiffs adequately mitigated their damages by paying the extension fee, which avoided potentially higher costs.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for $75,000.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce a purported full and final settlement, which had been incorporated into a consent order, concerning spousal support, equalization, and the return of a vehicle.

The respondent opposed the proposed distribution of funds and sought transfer of the vehicle to her.

The court dismissed the motion to enforce, finding genuine issues requiring a trial.

Key issues included whether all essential terms were agreed upon (specifically regarding the vehicle) and whether the settlement was a result of unilateral or mutual mistake, particularly concerning a significant unilateral withdrawal from a joint line of credit by the applicant.

The court emphasized that the failure of parties to define the basis for relief requested was a sufficient ground for dismissal.

The respondent brought a Rule 14B motion seeking reconsideration of a spousal support order, specifically challenging the finding that he would be eligible for a full pension in 2025, alleging a mistake.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought costs.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding no mistake in the original order that would warrant reconsideration under Rule 25(19), stating any perceived error would require an appeal.

The court then proceeded to determine the costs for both the dismissed 14B motion and the underlying application (trial), assessing success based on the parties' positions and settlement offers, ultimately awarding the applicant partial indemnity costs for both.

The applicant, Ahman Ottley, sought to exclude evidence (drugs and a gun) obtained from searches of his car and residences, alleging breaches of his Charter rights under sections 8 (unreasonable search or seizure) and 9 (arbitrary detention).

The court addressed a preliminary issue regarding the disclosure of confidential informant (CI) information, finding that the judicial summary provided was sufficient for the defence to make full answer and defence.

The court then found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds for Mr. Ottley's arrest, based on CI information, police surveillance, and a prior "found in" incident.

Consequently, his section 9 rights were not violated.

The search of his car incident to arrest was deemed lawful and reasonable, as it was connected to the investigation, thus not violating his section 8 rights.

Finally, the searches of his residences, authorized by a warrant, were also found to be reasonable, as the issuing justice had sufficient grounds to believe evidence of drug trafficking would be found at those locations.

As no Charter breaches were found, the application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The court issued a costs endorsement for two consolidated applications concerning beneficial ownership of a property.

The initial applications sought declarations of 100% ownership by each party.

The court found a 75.2% interest for Gandhi and 24.8% for Fajebe, ordering the property sold.

Neither party's offers to settle triggered Rule 49.10 costs consequences as they contained non-ordered terms or were not easily comparable to the judgment.

Considering Rule 57.01 factors, including delays and abandoned claims, the court found both parties largely failed to meet their onuses.

Despite Gandhi being "less unsuccessful," the court ordered no costs, finding divided success and no operative offer to settle.

This seven-day trial addressed spousal support, including entitlement, quantum, retroactivity, lump sum, and duration, following a 24-year marriage.

The court found the applicant entitled to compensatory support due to career sacrifices and her primary caregiver role.

It determined the income for both parties, awarded retroactive support from June 1, 2020, and ongoing monthly support of $1,900.

However, the request for a lump sum future support award was denied due to the unpredictable future means and needs of the parties.

Indefinite support was deemed appropriate given the long duration of the marriage.

This consolidated trial addressed the ownership of a property, with both parties seeking declarations of ownership.

Fajebe claimed Gandhi held the property in trust for him after a sale, while Gandhi asserted an outright sale with a lease-back arrangement.

The court rejected the express trust claim but found an implied trust based on Fajebe's initial equity contribution.

The property was ordered to be sold, with net proceeds divided 75.2% to Gandhi and 24.8% to Fajebe, reflecting their proven contributions.

The court also found the lease unenforceable and ordered Fajebe to make monthly payments from the trial start until the property's sale.

The applicant sought vacant possession of his property from the respondent, his common-law spouse, who opposed the motion and sought interim spousal support, arguing their cohabitation agreement was void or unenforceable.

The court found a triable issue regarding the agreement's enforceability and the respondent's prima facie entitlement to support based on need.

The court ordered the respondent to vacate the property by a specific date and ordered the applicant to pay a lump sum towards past spousal support and ongoing monthly interim spousal support.