Roger Chown

Following a prior endorsement granting enforcement of a Puerto Rican judgment in Ontario, the court considered whether to grant a temporary stay to allow the respondent to pursue remedies in Puerto Rico, and what costs to award.

The court declined to grant a stay as the respondent had done little to advance the Puerto Rican motion.

The court also declined to award costs to the successful applicant, noting the applicant had failed to attempt to notify the respondent of the foreign proceedings despite having her contact information.

The applicant sought to enforce a Puerto Rican judgment of over $1M USD against the respondent in Ontario.

The respondent argued a lack of natural justice, claiming she did not receive notice of the Puerto Rican proceeding.

The court found that although the respondent likely did not receive actual notice, she had contractually agreed to the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico and had a remedy available there.

Comity required the respondent to pursue her remedy in Puerto Rico, so the judgment was recognized.

The plaintiff investors brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for fraudulent misrepresentation.

The plaintiffs had invested funds with the defendant for foreign exchange trading based on written agreements that guaranteed the return of their original investments and promised high rates of return.

The defendant lost the funds and admitted breach of contract but denied fraud.

The court found the case suitable for summary judgment and held that the defendant made false representations of fact, knowing they were false or reckless as to their truth, with the intention that the plaintiffs would rely on them.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for fraudulent misrepresentation.

The offender, a 22-year-old first-time offender, was convicted by a jury of possession of 247.5 g of fentanyl and 93.4 g of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court found him to be a mid-level, profit-motivated trafficker.

Mitigating factors included his youth, lack of prior record, family support, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, for which he received six months of Duncan credit.

The court emphasized the devastating impact of fentanyl on the community and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The offender was sentenced to 8 years for the fentanyl charge and 4 years concurrent for the methamphetamine charge, leaving 1016 days to serve after pre-sentence and Duncan credits.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession of psilocybin, and possession of a prohibited weapon.

The Crown sought a sentence of five to six years, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's role as the primary caregiver for his two young daughters as a mitigating factor, but noted the serious nature of trafficking 202 grams of methamphetamine from a residence where children were present.

The court rejected a conditional sentence due to the statutory bar for sentences over two years and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The offender was sentenced to four years' imprisonment for the trafficking charge, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.

The plaintiff brought an action for civil sexual assault and constructive dismissal against her former employer.

The defendant had previously pled guilty to sexually assaulting the plaintiff in the workplace but denied liability in the civil action, claiming his plea was coerced.

The court rejected the defendant's evidence, finding him liable for the sexual assaults and constructive dismissal.

The court awarded a total of $137,689 in damages, including $75,000 for general and aggravated damages, $5,000 in punitive damages, and amounts for future counselling, delayed entry into the workforce, and constructive dismissal.

The plaintiffs requested a remote hearing for a pre-trial conference, citing travel distance, winter driving conditions, and counsel's childcare arrangements.

The court denied the request, noting that the presumptive mode of hearing for pre-trial conferences is in-person to facilitate settlement, and that the reasons provided were not clear and compelling.

However, the court reduced the conference duration to one hour and adjusted the start time to accommodate travel and childcare.

The court also offered the parties the option of a 30-minute remote case conference focused solely on trial management if they agreed to forgo settlement discussions.

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.

Following his conviction by a jury on 13 counts of drug trafficking, the accused applied for a stay of proceedings on the grounds of entrapment.

He argued that undercover police officers went beyond providing an opportunity and induced him to commit the offences, particularly during the first transaction where he sold fentanyl to an officer.

The court preferred the evidence of the police officers over the accused's testimony, finding that the officer's requests were not persistent or exploitative of the accused's vulnerabilities.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the accused was a willing participant and the police did not induce the offences, resulting in the dismissal of the entrapment application.

In a jury trial on an allegation of sexual assault against a child, the Crown sought to use text messages disclosed only during the accused’s evidence to impeach the accused and support the complainant’s mother on opportunity.

The court found the timing of disclosure prejudiced the accused because the defence had already cross-examined key witnesses, committed to a factual position undermined by the messages, and the accused had testified without a meaningful opportunity to review or authenticate the material.

The court held that limiting instructions or adjournment could not adequately cure the unfairness in the existing trial.

In combination with severe weather disruptions, unexpectedly lengthy evidence, the accused’s mid-trial arrest, and a necessary five-week adjournment, the resulting risk of miscarriage of justice required a mistrial.

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.

The offender was convicted of possession of one kilogram of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking after being found with the drugs in the footwell of a vehicle.

The Crown sought a five-year sentence, while the defence sought 30 months to three years.

The court weighed the significant quantity of drugs as an aggravating factor against the offender's lack of a prior criminal record, family support, and addiction issues as mitigating factors.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, and relying on appellate guidance for similar offences, the court sentenced the offender to five years' imprisonment.

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.