SCJ 2014

The applicants brought a motion for contempt against a respondent who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant and permanently enjoined from communicating with or publishing commentary about the applicants.

The applicants filed extensive electronic materials demonstrating continued communications and publications alleging misconduct and bribery by judges and law enforcement officials involved in the earlier proceedings.

The court considered whether the respondent’s conduct was intentional and whether mental health issues might affect her ability to form the requisite intent for contempt.

Pursuant to s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court ordered a psychiatric assessment before determining liability and sentencing.

Costs were reserved pending completion of the assessment.

The applicant sought exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter and to quash a search warrant obtained in a robbery investigation.

Police had obtained information from correctional officials and photographed a jacket stored with the applicant’s prison property prior to obtaining a warrant.

The court held the applicant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in personal effects stored under the control of correctional authorities and that any privacy interest in the property record was minimal.

Even if a breach occurred, it was technical and minor and the Grant factors did not justify exclusion.

The warrant remained valid on the totality of the evidence and the Garofoli application failed.

The two accused were stopped by police while driving in a vehicle owned by the driver.

Both were arrested for breaching their bail conditions.

During the arrest, an officer spotted the handle of a loaded handgun protruding from under a floor mat in the back seat.

The driver brought a s. 8 Charter application challenging the seizure, which was dismissed as the court found the gun was in plain view.

At trial, the driver was found guilty of all firearms and breach charges, as his knowledge and control of the weapon were inferred from his ownership and control of the vehicle.

The passenger was acquitted of all charges due to insufficient evidence of his knowledge and control of the firearm.

Following a marriage breakdown involving a self‑employed lawn irrigation contractor, the court addressed disputed income, child support, spousal support, and a parenting travel request.

The parties accused each other of manipulating or concealing income during and after the marriage.

The court found deficiencies in financial disclosure and applied the Child Support Guidelines to impute income to both parties, rejecting some claimed business deductions and attributing additional income including cash components.

Support obligations were recalculated retroactively and prospectively, with arrears fixed and ongoing differential child and spousal support ordered.

The court also permitted the child to travel unaccompanied to Poland for a month to visit the applicant’s family, finding the trip in the child’s best interests.

A joint venture partner sought disclosure of detailed payroll and employment records of the other partner’s employees working on a diamond mine project in order to audit joint venture expenditures.

The respondent refused, arguing disclosure would contravene the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) without employee consent.

The court held that while the applicant had a contractual right to audit and the information sought constituted personal information under PIPEDA, disclosure without employee consent would violate the statute absent a statutory exception.

Section 7(3)(c) of PIPEDA does not create a free‑standing jurisdiction for courts to order disclosure; rather, it applies only after an independent court order requiring production exists.

Because no such jurisdictional basis had been invoked, the application was dismissed without prejudice to renewal.

Following a motion in which the defendants sought to dismiss a negligence action against a firefighter as statute‑barred and for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, the court dismissed the defendants’ motion and granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their statement of claim.

The plaintiffs subsequently sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued the plaintiffs should not recover costs because they could have avoided expense by not opposing the motion.

The court rejected this submission, holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to resist the motion and defend their right to challenge the statutory defence.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs with reductions for excessive disbursements and to align with reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

The accused was tried on allegations of historical sexual assault, touching for a sexual purpose, and threats of death involving a child complainant.

The court found the complainant credible and forthright, with some confirmatory support from other evidence, but held that credibility alone did not resolve the case.

Defence evidence concerning opportunity, contradictions on material surrounding circumstances, memory concerns, and the absence of potentially confirmatory witnesses left the court with a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

In the administration of a settled national class action concerning compensation claims, class counsel sought approval of a protocol allowing class members to submit late compensation claims despite the expiry of the original deadline under the settlement agreement.

The court had previously provisionally approved the protocol subject to approvals by courts in other jurisdictions.

The remaining issue concerned costs related to the protocol approval motion.

Only the moving party made submissions and requested that there be no order as to costs.

The court accepted the unopposed submission and ordered that there be no order as to costs.

In the liability phase of a civil trial arising from a dispute between a construction contractor and a municipality, the court determined liability on the contractor’s claim and the municipality’s counterclaims.

The contractor succeeded on its claim and on its defence to the counterclaims.

The municipality’s counterclaims were dismissed.

The court indicated that detailed reasons would follow and directed the parties to provide written submissions regarding costs of the trial phase.

Foreign defendants moved to set aside service ex juris of a statement of claim and to stay or dismiss an Ontario action alleging fraudulent conveyance of wind turbine business assets.

The plaintiff had previously obtained judgment in Ontario for breach of a letter of intent to market turbines in Canada, and alleged the defendants transferred assets to avoid satisfying that judgment.

The court held that a presumptive connecting factor existed because a contract made and breached in Ontario was connected to the dispute regarding the asset transfer.

The defendants failed to rebut the presumption of jurisdiction and did not demonstrate that another forum, such as California, was clearly more appropriate under forum non conveniens principles.

Service ex juris and substituted service were upheld and the action was permitted to proceed in Ontario.

In a personal injury action arising from a slip and fall in a grocery store parking lot, the defendants brought a motion seeking compliance with outstanding undertakings given by the plaintiffs during examinations for discovery.

Numerous requests and prior directions had been made for the undertakings to be fulfilled, including requests for financial records, medical documentation, and particulars relating to damages and care costs.

The court held that litigants have an ongoing obligation to provide information undertaken at discovery and cannot rely on procedural rules regarding particulars to delay disclosure until shortly before trial.

The court found that many undertakings remained outstanding and that the materials produced did not adequately particularize damages.

An order was granted requiring the plaintiffs to fulfill the undertakings by a specified deadline.

The appellant appealed a conviction for dangerous driving following a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The sole ground of appeal argued that the trial judge improperly applied the rule in Browne v. Dunn by diminishing the weight of the defence evidence because the defence version was not put to Crown witnesses during cross-examination.

The appellate court held that trial judges retain discretion in determining how to address a breach of the rule, including considering the failure to cross-examine when assessing credibility.

The court found that defence counsel had the opportunity to seek recall of witnesses after the issue was raised but chose not to do so.

The trial judge’s treatment of the issue was a permissible exercise of discretion and did not amount to reversible error.

The accused applied for directed verdicts at the close of the Crown’s case in a jury trial involving multiple firearm offences arising from the discovery of a loaded handgun and other weapons in an apartment.

The Crown’s case was entirely circumstantial and relied on evidence connecting both accused to the premises and the location of the firearm within a shared laundry hamper.

The court reviewed the directed verdict test and principles governing circumstantial evidence, constructive possession, and joint possession.

It held that the circumstantial evidence could support reasonable inferences of knowledge and control sufficient for a properly instructed jury to convict on the firearm-related counts.

However, there was no evidence supporting the mental element required for possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace regarding a stun gun.

The Crown sought estreatment and forfeiture of a $30,000 recognizance after the accused breached a house arrest condition by leaving his residence without a surety.

The accused had been released on bail with two sureties and strict conditions addressing substance abuse risks.

One surety temporarily delegated supervisory responsibilities to the other while leaving on vacation, without seeking a formal bail variation.

The court held that sureties cannot unilaterally delegate or restructure bail supervision and must seek formal variation where circumstances change.

Partial forfeiture was ordered against the accused and both sureties, balancing the importance of maintaining the “pull of bail” with the relatively limited harm caused by the brief breach.

Companies applied for initial protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act in respect of insolvency arising from liquidity issues and substantial unsecured investor debt.

Evidence showed significant unpaid promissory notes and bonds, loan losses, and transfers of company funds to a related management entity.

The court applied the insolvency tests drawn from the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and concluded the companies were debtor companies under the CCAA.

A stay of proceedings was granted to permit restructuring or realization of the lending portfolio.

The court also approved an administration charge and a directors’ and officers’ charge to support the restructuring process.

The court reconsidered a prior costs decision after receiving late submissions from counsel for the respondent.

The issue concerned whether the court had jurisdiction to order costs against the respondent when the notice of application had requested costs only against an incapable person.

The court permitted the applicant to file written submissions addressing the jurisdictional issue within 15 days.

The endorsement dealt solely with the procedural reconsideration of the costs determination.

A young person was tried for second degree murder, attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, careless use of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a firearm following a lobby shooting that resulted in a death and injury.

The accused admitted firing the gun but asserted self‑defence after being struck on the head with a baseball bat during a group attack.

The court found the accused had a reasonable belief of a threat and a defensive purpose, but concluded that firing multiple shots at retreating attackers was objectively unreasonable.

The court held the Crown failed to prove the intent required for murder or attempted murder.

The accused was convicted of manslaughter, aggravated assault, careless use of a firearm, and possession of a firearm without a licence.

Following a family law trial, the court determined the issue of costs after the successful party had made multiple offers to settle for amounts less than the ultimate judgment.

The court found that the trial was unnecessary in light of the earlier offers and that the successful party was therefore entitled to substantial indemnity costs for preparation and attendance at trial.

Because the moving party failed to provide docket details with the original costs submissions, the court independently calculated allowable hours for trial and preparation.

The court fixed legal fees, law clerk time, and disbursements and applied HST to the approved legal fees.

Following settlement of all substantive issues in a family proceeding, the remaining dispute concerned costs related to a motion for child support.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of approximately $13,000, while the respondent sought costs of approximately $18,000, alleging the applicant had acted unreasonably.

The court found the income figure of $35,000, accepted by both parties, to be reasonable and rejected the argument that the applicant’s conduct alone caused the delay.

The judge noted that the respondent’s conduct could equally have contributed to prolonging the proceedings.

The court concluded that neither party should recover costs.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion under Rule 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order preserving a specific fund by requiring the defendants to pay into court the anticipated proceeds of sale of a commercial property, or a portion thereof, pending determination of outstanding damage claims arising from a failed closing under an agreement of purchase and sale.

The court reviewed the governing test requiring a proprietary claim to a reasonably identifiable fund, a serious issue to be tried, and a balance of convenience favouring the order.

The court held that the plaintiff’s claim was for unproven damages, including an alleged abatement of the purchase price and lost profits, rather than a proprietary interest in the sale proceeds.

As the plaintiff failed to establish a legal right to a specific fund as required by Rule 45.02, the motion was dismissed without consideration of the remaining elements of the test.