Sally A. Gomery

The plaintiffs moved to find the defendant Robert Nelson in contempt for failing to comply with court orders, including a Mareva injunction, to disclose information and records regarding his assets.

Robert Nelson claimed inability to disclose due to employer confidentiality and lack of a court order.

The court found Robert Nelson's explanations implausible and his non-compliance deliberate and willful, concluding that the alleged employment and investment fund at TD/MBNA did not exist.

The court found Robert Nelson in contempt and extended the Mareva order, setting a hearing for sanctions.

The defendant Robert Nelson was found in contempt of court orders, including a Mareva injunction, for failing to disclose information and records.

Despite being given an opportunity to purge his contempt, he failed to comply.

The court considered the purposes of sanctioning contempt (ensuring future compliance and upholding public respect for court processes) and relevant factors including proportionality, mitigating/aggravating factors, deterrence, and denunciation.

Given the seriousness of breaching a Mareva order, the deliberate nature of the non-compliance, and the lack of genuine remorse or effort to purge contempt, the court imposed a two-week custodial sentence.

Costs were also awarded to the plaintiff Anise Odeh.

The plaintiff, Denis Roy, was seriously injured in a 2004 motorcycle accident, suffering physical and psychological impairments.

His insurer, Primmum Insurance Co. (referred to as TD), initially paid attendant care benefits (ACBs) and housekeeping benefits (HKBs) but later reduced and terminated them.

Roy applied for a catastrophic impairment (CAT) determination in 2010, which TD contested for over three years before conceding in 2014.

Roy then sought retroactive ACBs and HKBs, plus statutory interest, from the date of the accident.

The court found that Roy was catastrophically impaired from the date of the accident, that the claimed retroactive ACBs were reasonable and necessary, and that TD was obligated to pay statutory interest due to its failure to comply with SABS obligations and its duty of good faith.

The court, on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissed the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff alleged that a defendant falsely represented his marital status to a pension plan, leading to him receiving benefits to which he was not entitled.

The court found the action constituted an abusive collateral attack on the pension plan's determination, which was already subject to judicial review by the plaintiff.

Additionally, the plaintiff's claim for children's documents lacked a legal basis.

The action was dismissed without costs.

The court approved the sale of real property by the Receiver but reserved decision on the Receiver's and its counsel's fees.

The Debtor sought a 50% reduction in fees.

The court applied factors from Re Bakemates International Inc. to assess fairness and reasonableness.

While the Receiver's and counsel's fees to January 2020 were deemed reasonable, the estimated additional fees to close the file were reduced from $16,950 to $10,000 due to the Receiver's initial motion record lacking sufficient evidence for the property sale approval.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of an anti-SLAPP motion brought by the defendant, Michael Bueckert, and a cross-motion by the plaintiff, Michele Di Franco, to strike Mr. Bueckert's affidavit.

The court found no reason to depart from the statutory presumption against awarding costs on the anti-SLAPP motion, as it was not frivolous and the expression related to a matter of public interest.

However, on the motion to strike the affidavit, the court awarded Mr. Bueckert $3000 in partial indemnity costs against Mr. Di Franco, after considering factors under Rule 57.01(1) and discounting the amount for work that may have future utility.

La demanderesse, Alphonsine Kasakanga, a obtenu un jugement par défaut contre les défendeurs, Chantal-Faith Fuamba et Yves Fuamba, pour manquement contractuel, violation d'obligations fiduciaires, fausses représentations frauduleuses et vol d'identité.

Les défendeurs avaient convaincu la demanderesse d'acheter une maison pour leur projet d'entreprise en contractant un prêt hypothécaire en son nom, puis ont omis d'effectuer les paiements, entraînant une saisie immobilière.

De plus, ils ont été jugés responsables d'avoir obtenu une carte de crédit au nom de la demanderesse à son insu.

Le tribunal a accordé des dommages-intérêts compensatoires de 156 625,17 $, des dommages-intérêts punitifs de 20 000 $ et des frais de 12 000 $.

This motion to vary a 2016 divorce order addressed child support, special and extraordinary expenses (s. 7), and spousal support.

The moving party (H.T.L.) sought reductions and termination, while the responding party (M.R.) sought increases and other relief.

The court found a material change in circumstances, varied child support to $1755/month retroactive to July 2018, reduced H.T.L.'s s. 7 expense contribution, and terminated spousal support retroactive to January 2019.

The court found M.R.'s evidence on S.'s university expenses unreliable and dismissed her claims for increased s. 7 contributions and contempt.

M.R. was ordered to repay H.T.L. for overpaid support, offset by a dental reimbursement H.T.L. owed M.R.

Michael Bueckert brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action brought by Michele Di Franco.

Di Franco also brought a cross-motion to strike Bueckert's affidavit.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that Di Franco's defamation claim had substantial merit and Bueckert's defenses of fair comment and justification might not succeed.

The court also found that the harm to Di Franco's reputation, particularly as a law student, was sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting Bueckert's expression, especially given the vitriolic nature of some of the statements.

The moving party, Jefferey Dunn, sought to vary a 2011 child support order and reduce arrears, arguing a material change in circumstances due to lower income and the responding party's delay in enforcement.

The court dismissed his motion, finding he failed to prove a material change, particularly regarding his imputed income, and that he was aware or wilfully ignorant of the original order.

The court also found the responding party's delay in enforcement reasonable given the moving party's erratic and threatening behaviour.

This endorsement addresses two motions in a motor vehicle accident claim.

First, The Co-Operators General Insurance Company successfully moved to be added as a third party under s. 258(14) of the Insurance Act, having denied liability to its insured, the defendant driver, for failing to disclose his Uber driving activities.

Second, the plaintiff successfully moved to amend his statement of claim to increase his loss of income claim and add Uber Canada Inc. as a defendant.

The court found the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence in discovering his claim against Uber, rejecting arguments that the claim was time-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, but reserving Uber's right to plead a limitations defence at trial or summary judgment.

The defendant in a sexual assault case brought a motion for directions under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code to determine the admissibility of Facebook messages exchanged with the complainant.

The court had to decide if the messages contained personal information for which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy, making them presumptively inadmissible.

The court found that two of the three sets of messages met this definition, while one mundane chat did not.

The ruling clarified the factors for assessing privacy expectation, rejecting the relevance of the current adversarial relationship and broad policy implications at the initial definitional stage.

The plaintiff, Drew Casterton, sued the defendant, Gordon MacIsaac, for injuries sustained during a recreational hockey game collision.

The court found MacIsaac liable for intentionally or recklessly causing a blindside hit to Casterton's face, which was deemed outside the bounds of fair play.

The defence of contributory negligence, based on Casterton's choice of a half-visor and alleged cannabis impairment, was rejected.

Casterton was awarded general damages, past income loss, and future income loss, totaling $702,551, but punitive damages were not granted.

The Trustee in Bankruptcy sought costs after successfully prosecuting seventeen lawsuits against individuals and companies who received payments from a bankrupt entity.

The court determined reasonable costs, discounting for settled actions and applying Small Claims Court caps where applicable, ultimately awarding $232,500 in total costs and allocating them among the defendants.

The plaintiff, a grieving father, sued his son's mother, a funeral home, and its director for breach of contract, deceit, and intentional infliction of mental distress after being excluded from his son's funeral.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of the lawsuit.

The court dismissed all claims, finding no enforceable contract between the parties, no false misrepresentation to support deceit, and insufficient evidence of subjective intent to cause psychological harm for intentional infliction of mental distress, despite acknowledging the defendants' callous and insensitive conduct.

Following a successful civil action for abuse against their father, Liviu Calin, plaintiffs Ana and Ilinca Calin sought costs of over $395,000.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 factors, found the requested costs disproportionately high given the significant disparity between the $10.15 million claimed and the $105,000 awarded.

While acknowledging the plaintiffs' success and the principles of the Victims' Bill of Rights, the court determined that the plaintiffs' pursuit of unrealistic claims, particularly for income loss and incidents in Romania, unnecessarily lengthened proceedings.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $100,000 in costs, reduced by a prior $17,000 order against them, resulting in a net payment of $83,000 from the defendant.

The applicant, Tamara Bahlawan, brought a Garofoli application seeking to exclude evidence seized during a search of her residence, arguing that the search warrant breached her s. 8 Charter rights.

The warrant was issued based on an Information to Obtain (ITO) that relied on confidential informers (CIs) and police surveillance.

The court found four material misrepresentations in the ITO regarding CI statements, which were corrected or excised.

However, the court determined that police surveillance sufficiently corroborated the CIs' tips, distinguishing the case from R. v. Liu.

The court also found that the information provided was sufficient for the issuing judge to assess the CIs' reliability, despite some boilerplate language and a preference for full disclosure of one CI's criminal record.

Ultimately, the reviewing judge concluded that a search warrant could reasonably have been issued on the corrected ITO.

The application to quash the warrant and exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The defendant, Brian Landry, was charged with sexual assault causing bodily harm.

The court found the defendant's testimony not credible due to internal inconsistencies and implausibility.

The complainant's testimony was largely accepted, despite some minor inconsistencies.

The Crown proved that the defendant sexually assaulted the complainant by forcibly inserting fingers into her vagina and engaging in vaginal and anal intercourse without consent.

However, the Crown failed to prove bodily harm beyond a reasonable doubt, as there was no tangible physical or psychological injury established.

Consequently, the defendant was found guilty of sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code, but acquitted of the bodily harm component.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought an extended care order for ABR, born in 2017, due to ongoing domestic violence between the mother (JR) and father (DB).

ABR had been in foster care since three months old.

The court found ABR was not a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child due to insufficient evidence of a meaningful connection to a specific community.

The court determined that ABR remained in need of protection due to the persistent risk of physical and emotional harm from the parents' toxic relationship and JR's inability to sever ties with DB, despite extensive support from the Society.

The court concluded that an extended Society care order for adoption was in ABR's best interests, as JR had not demonstrated the necessary changes to ensure ABR's safety and permanency.

The applicants sought to lift a stay of proceedings to enforce a prior summary judgment order for $102,500 against the respondents, who had filed a consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicants argued the debt fell under exceptions for discharge (fraud, misrepresentation, or fiduciary defalcation) under s. 178(1) of the BIA.

The court reviewed the original application, the 2017 order, and new evidence, finding no basis for fraud, misrepresentation, or a fiduciary relationship.

The court concluded that the debt was a simple breach of contract and therefore dischargeable in bankruptcy.

The motion to lift the stay was dismissed as the applicants failed to demonstrate material prejudice or other equitable grounds.