Sandra Nishikawa

The accused were charged with drug trafficking and firearms offences after police executed a search warrant at their residence and seized cocaine, a loaded handgun, and cash.

The accused brought a Charter application arguing that the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant was deliberately misleading and lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found that the ITO contained numerous inaccurate, exaggerated, and unsupported statements by the affiant officer, which were excised.

After excising the misleading information, the court concluded that the remaining evidence from a confidential informant was insufficiently corroborated, resulting in breaches of the accused's rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the seized evidence under s. 24(2) due to the seriousness of the police conduct in drafting a deliberately misleading ITO.

As the Crown called no further evidence, all charges were dismissed.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude firearms-related evidence and a statement obtained following the execution of a residential search warrant.

The court held that the information to obtain established reasonable and probable grounds to believe the accused had committed an offence, but failed to establish reasonable and probable grounds to believe evidence would be found at the residence, and contained a misleading statement about timing.

The court also found an unjustified delay in implementing the accused’s right to counsel after the scene had stabilized and again after arrival at the police station, although no s. 9 breach was made out.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the firearm, ammunition, and cash, but admitted the post-consultation statement.

The applicant father sought to set aside a domestic contract resolving child support and parenting issues, arguing the respondent mother repudiated the agreement through multiple breaches, including interfering with access and violating confidentiality provisions.

The corporate applicant, controlled by the father, also sought to enforce a mortgage on the mother's home.

The court found that while the mother breached certain access and confidentiality terms, her conduct did not amount to a repudiation or fundamental breach of the agreement as a whole.

The court also dismissed the mortgage enforcement action, finding the mother was not in default and was entitled to exercise her option under the agreement to redeem the mortgage.

The applications to set aside the agreement and enforce the mortgage were dismissed.

The plaintiff developer brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to close an agreement of purchase and sale for a new home.

The defendant argued he did not understand the agreement and suffered financial hardship.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendant failed to close and the agreement was binding.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff for $316,134.54, representing the difference in sale price, carrying costs, and interest, minus the forfeited deposit.

The accused was charged with firearms offences after police arrested him and found a loaded handgun in his fanny pack.

The police acted on a stale, uncorroborated tip from a confidential informant and briefly observed the accused riding an e-bike before blocking his path and arresting him.

The court found the officers lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, violating the accused's rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the firearm under s. 24(2) due to the seriousness of the breach and its impact on the accused's rights, resulting in a finding of not guilty.

The Crown applied under s. 521 of the Criminal Code to vacate a Justice of the Peace's release order for the respondent, Daniel Dubajic, and to detain him pending trial.

The Crown argued the Justice of the Peace erred in law and that the decision was clearly inappropriate, particularly regarding the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention.

The court found that the Justice of the Peace erred in assessing the strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offences, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offences (specifically the "use" of firearms), and the potential sentence.

The court also found the proposed release plan inadequate.

Consequently, the court granted the Crown's application, ordering Dubajic's detention on secondary and tertiary grounds, while agreeing with the Justice of the Peace's assessment on the primary ground (flight risk).

Mehrasa Tamaddonfar, a respondent in the main application, brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking the release of 50 percent of the proceeds from the sale of a matrimonial home.

The applicant, Seyedeh Shabnam Banihashemi, claimed 100 percent beneficial ownership through resulting trust or unjust enrichment, despite Ms. Tamaddonfar being a legal co-owner who contributed to the down payment and co-signed the mortgage.

The court dismissed Ms. Banihashemi's claims, finding that Ms. Tamaddonfar gave value for her interest, thus precluding a resulting trust, and that there was no unjust enrichment as Ms. Banihashemi benefited from acquiring the property and living there.

The motion for partial summary judgment was granted, and 50% of the proceeds were ordered released to Ms. Tamaddonfar.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased and unsupervised parenting time with the parties' young child.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for interim spousal and child support.

The mother alleged a history of severe domestic violence and raised concerns about a potential murder-suicide, arguing that the father's parenting time must remain supervised.

The court found that while there was some evidentiary basis for the abuse allegations, there was no evidence that the father posed a risk to the child.

The court ordered a gradual transition from third-party supervision to supervision by the paternal grandmother, and then to unsupervised parenting time of 30 hours per week.

On the cross-motion, the court found the mother was entitled to interim support and ordered the father to pay $1,739 monthly in spousal support and $855 monthly in child support based on his 2018 income of $93,035, declining to impute higher income to him or any income to the mother at this interim stage.

The applicant mother sought to relocate the children's residence to Texas.

The respondent father brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the application, arguing that the parties' separation agreement strictly prohibited relocation for seven years.

The court interpreted the separation agreement and found it permitted relocation with consent or a court order, meaning there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the children's best interests.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion but stayed the application, ordering the parties to proceed to arbitration pursuant to the dispute resolution clause in the separation agreement.

The Applicant brought a motion for disclosure of the Respondent's solicitor's file and for responses to questions refused during questioning.

The Respondent brought a cross-motion for disclosure of the Applicant's solicitor's file.

The Applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement, alleging the Respondent materially misrepresented his financial circumstances by failing to disclose a significant business sale.

The court found that the Respondent had waived solicitor-client privilege by putting his state of mind at issue in his defence against allegations of intentional torts.

The court also determined that settlement privilege did not apply to the Respondent's settlement discussions due to the public interest in ensuring full and frank disclosure in cases of alleged misrepresentation.

The Applicant's motion was granted, and the Respondent's cross-motion was dismissed.

The appellant mother brought a motion for contempt against the respondent father, alleging he breached an interim access order by failing to provide her with access to their child on two weekends.

The court found that while the order was clear and the respondent had knowledge of it, the appellant failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent intentionally breached the order, as the missed visits resulted from a severe communication breakdown between the parties and counsel, compounded by the appellant's COVID-19 self-isolation.

The motion for contempt was dismissed, make-up access time was ordered, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The respondent husband brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant wife's claims for equalization, spousal support, and a freezing of assets.

The parties separated in 2005, but the wife did not commence her application until 2018.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the equalization claim was statute-barred and the wife failed to meet the test to extend the limitation period under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act due to a lack of apparent grounds for relief, lack of good faith in the delay, and substantial prejudice to the husband.

The court also dismissed the spousal support claim, finding no compensatory basis and that the wife's financial hardship arose from regulatory penalties for securities fraud, not the marriage breakdown.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the husband.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an order allowing the parties' three children to travel to Texas for her parenting time during the Christmas holidays.

The respondent father opposed the motion, citing a recent consent order precluding international travel without a quarantine exemption, and the health risks and school disruptions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the consent order was determinative and that, in any event, the proposed travel and subsequent quarantine were not in the children's best interests.

Following a trial judgment in favour of the plaintiff, the parties made written submissions on the quantification of prejudgment interest and costs.

The court fixed prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of 1.3 percent.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a substantial indemnity basis, finding that the defendants engaged in egregious, scandalous, and outrageous conduct throughout the litigation, including misleading the court and breaching a court order.

The plaintiff's costs were fixed at $568,292.05.

The father brought an urgent motion to restrain the mother from relocating with their eight-year-old child from Toronto to Kemptville.

The mother brought a cross-motion to permit the relocation so the child could attend a specialized reading intervention program.

The court found that the child had significant reading challenges and that the mother's proposed educational plan constituted compelling circumstances to allow the move on an interim basis.

The father's motion was dismissed, and the mother's cross-motion was granted, permitting the relocation for the 2020-2021 school year pending a final determination at trial.

The father was awarded extended parenting time to compensate for the geographical distance.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a temporary order made by Justice Shelston on August 27, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,745.55.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to restore an alternating week parenting schedule after the respondent mother unilaterally withheld the children due to concerns about his alcohol consumption and behaviour.

The court found that while the mother's concerns were supported by CAS records, suspending all access was not in the children's best interests.

The court ordered a gradual return to the alternating week schedule, subject to strict conditions including the father's use of a Soberlink alcohol monitoring system.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's $27 million breach of contract claim on summary judgment, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendant relied on the plaintiff's conduct and a pre-litigation offer to settle for $70,000.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible and held that Rule 49 cost consequences do not apply to pre-litigation offers.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $180,000, applying a reduction to the defendant's claimed hours and rates for proportionality.

Following a motion to change that resulted in a shared parenting schedule, the parties sought clarification on the terms of the draft order regarding child support and arrears, and made submissions on costs.

The court ordered that child support be payable by both parties rather than set off, to preserve tax benefits, and calculated childcare arrears on an after-tax basis.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs, alleging bad faith and relying on offers to settle.

The court found the respondent's conduct unreasonable but not in bad faith, and noted the offers did not meet the strict requirements of the rules.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $37,000, payable in installments.

Following a judgment for breach of a commercial lease, the plaintiff landlord sought prejudgment interest and costs.

The court awarded prejudgment interest at the contractual rate of prime plus five percent, rejecting the tenant's argument that his self-represented status constituted an exceptional circumstance.

The court also awarded substantial indemnity costs from the date of the landlord's offer to settle, as the trial judgment exceeded the offer.

Costs were fixed at $128,000, reduced from the claimed amount due to proportionality concerns.