R. Pelletier

The accused, a spokesperson for the 'Farfadaas' group, was charged with mischief and counselling to commit mischief in relation to the 'Freedom Convoy' protests in downtown Ottawa in early 2022.

The court found that the prolonged occupation, noise, and disruption significantly interfered with the lawful use and enjoyment of property by Ottawa residents and businesses, constituting mischief under s. 430 of the Criminal Code.

The court rejected the defence of officially induced error, finding that police inaction did not amount to permission.

The accused was found guilty of mischief, as his actions and communications actively encouraged and supported the illegal occupation.

The defendants brought a motion arguing that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction over the litigation.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants carried on business in Ontario and that the contract for the sale of a tractor was formed in Ontario.

The court applied the real and substantial connection test and found that the defendants' activities did not amount to carrying on business in Ontario.

Furthermore, the court determined that the contract was formed in Quebec during a telephone conversation.

Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to establish a geographic connection to Ontario, and the defendants' motion was granted.

The plaintiffs were successful in a Rule 26 motion to amend their pleadings and sought costs.

The defendants argued the costs should be reduced due to efforts expended on an anticipated summary judgment motion based on the prior pleadings, which they claimed were costs thrown away.

The court declined to discount the costs on this basis, noting the summary judgment motion might not have succeeded and some preparation might still be useful.

The court fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $14,212.82 on a partial recovery basis.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to deliver a fresh statement of claim in a negligence action against a fitness club and associated entities.

The proposed amendments sought to add a claim for negligent misrepresentation regarding insurance coverage and to pierce the corporate veil, based on information obtained during discoveries.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the amendments pleaded evidence, withdrew admissions, raised untenable claims, were statute-barred, and constituted an abuse of process.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments, finding the amendments pleaded material facts, did not cause irreparable disadvantage, and raised triable issues discovered within the limitation period.

The motion was granted.

The respondent father brought a motion for temporary orders including child support, spousal support, and permission to communicate with the applicant mother.

The mother brought an informal cross-motion for child support.

The court found that the father met the 40% threshold for shared custody and imputed his income at $40,000 due to insufficient financial disclosure.

The mother was ordered to pay $900 per month in child support, subject to a 30% reduction for extraordinary expenses she paid.

The father's requests for temporary spousal support and direct communication with the mother were dismissed due to the high-conflict nature of the separation.

The responding father brought a motion seeking multiple interim parenting-related orders, including a prohibition on the mother relocating more than five kilometres, orders concerning parenting structure and school attendance, restoration of a specific physician for the children, supervised access, and expanded disclosure from a child protection agency as well as medical and school records.

The court found no evidence that the mother intended to relocate or that the children lacked appropriate care, and held that the mother was presently meeting the children’s health and safety needs.

Given pending criminal charges prohibiting the father from contacting the children, the court determined it was premature to order supervised access.

The court also declined to revisit prior disclosure orders or compel disclosure from third-party institutions.

The motion was dismissed, with the exception of an order requiring the mother to provide 60 days’ notice of any relocation or school change.

La requérante a présenté une motion pour jugement sommaire dans une instance de protection de l’enfance visant une ordonnance de pupille de la Couronne sans accès aux parents.

Elle soutenait qu’il n’existait aucune question en litige véritable concernant les capacités parentales, les limites intellectuelles des parents, leur logement, leur réseau de soutien et les besoins particuliers de l’enfant.

Le tribunal a examiné la preuve par affidavit et a conclu que plusieurs questions factuelles demeuraient sérieusement contestées et dépendaient d’évaluations de crédibilité et d’appréciations subjectives.

Les questions relatives aux capacités parentales, aux limites cognitives, au logement et au soutien familial nécessitaient un examen complet par témoignage et contre‑interrogatoire.

La motion pour jugement sommaire a donc été rejetée et l’affaire renvoyée pour procès.