SCJ 2015

Following a marriage breakdown, the applicant sought equalization, opposed the spouse's spousal support and damages claims, and advanced an unjust enrichment claim against the spouse's grandparents arising from extensive labour and financial contributions to a farm property.

The court found unjust enrichment and awarded monetary relief of $50,000, including reimbursement for garage materials, holding there was enrichment, corresponding deprivation, and no juristic reason.

The court resolved several contested valuation issues for equalization purposes, excluded disputed pit-licence interests from net family property, and found an equalization payment owing from the applicant to the spouse.

The spouse's claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering was dismissed as not available in the family law context, and her spousal support claim was also dismissed.

Prejudgment interest was awarded on both monetary judgments.

In an insurance action arising from a denied long-term disability claim, the defendant moved during trial to amend its statement of defence to add express reliance on a termination clause in the group policy.

The court held that Rule 26.01 requires leave to amend at any stage unless the responding party would suffer prejudice not compensable by costs or an adjournment.

Although the timing of the motion was criticized, the court found any prejudice could be addressed through procedural accommodations, including a short adjournment, further discovery, or recalling witnesses.

The amendment was therefore permitted.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second‑degree murder of his common‑law partner following a lengthy trial.

The sentencing issue was the appropriate period of parole ineligibility under s. 745.4 of the Criminal Code.

The court considered the offender’s character, the nature and circumstances of the offence, the history of domestic violence, concealment of the victim’s body, lack of remorse, and the jury’s recommendations.

While the jury recommended significantly higher periods of ineligibility, the court applied established jurisprudential ranges for domestic second‑degree murder.

The court imposed life imprisonment with 16 years’ parole ineligibility, along with DNA and weapons prohibition orders.

The applicant sought declarations that the respondent had no right to terminate a commercial agreement of purchase and sale after the applicant failed to pay a second deposit on time, or alternatively relief from forfeiture.

The court held that the applicant did breach the agreement by not paying the deposit contemporaneously with the respondent taking possession under a related lease, but the breach was not material under the five-factor substantial failure of performance analysis.

The respondent's purported termination was therefore itself a breach.

However, the court refused to grant specific performance because the land was held only for investment and had already been flipped for a projected profit, making damages an adequate remedy, and also declined relief from forfeiture.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against several physicians and a hospital following the death of their newborn son.

The infant died from complications related to a rare congenital condition, anal stenosis, which was not diagnosed prior to his death.

The court found that the defendant physicians met the standard of care expected of general practitioners, as the condition was not externally visible and the infant did not present with symptoms warranting an urgent referral during their examinations.

The action was dismissed.

On a motion in a family proceeding, the moving party sought removal of opposing counsel based on a disqualifying conflict of interest.

A paralegal associated with opposing counsel had previously assisted the moving party while he was self-represented by preparing his answer, financial statement, and case conference brief, and had received confidential information about litigation strategy, finances, and family circumstances.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's conflict framework, the court held that the responding party and her counsel failed to show that formal policies or effective screening measures existed to make disclosure impossible or highly unlikely.

Undertakings from the paralegal were insufficient, particularly in a very small practice.

The motion was granted and counsel was removed as solicitor of record.

The applicant was arrested at gunpoint by plainclothes police officers who suspected him of trafficking heroin from his vehicle.

A warrantless search of the vehicle incident to arrest yielded a large quantity of heroin hidden in false-bottomed aerosol cans and cash.

The applicant brought a Charter application under ss. 8, 9, and 24(2) to exclude the evidence, arguing the police lacked objective reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest.

The court found the arrest was lawful based on the totality of the circumstances observed by the surveillance team.

Alternatively, applying the Grant framework, the court held that even if a Charter breach occurred, the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) given the reliability of the evidence and society's interest in adjudicating the serious charges on their merits.

On a pre-trial Charter application arising from hospital-based sexual assault and voyeurism allegations, the accused sought to exclude iPhone evidence and quash the search warrant on the basis of alleged ss. 8, 9 and 10(b) breaches.

The court held the arrest was supported by reasonable and probable grounds, but found that police violated s. 10(b) by questioning the accused about the location of his phone before advising him of his right to counsel.

Applying the s. 24(2) framework, the court excluded the accused's oral utterance but admitted the contents of the iPhone, finding the device would inevitably have been discovered and its contents were highly reliable and central to adjudication on the merits.

The application to quash the warrant was dismissed.

Following trial and supplementary reasons in a partnership dispute, the court determined costs and interest.

Although the plaintiffs did not succeed on every issue, including dissolution and goodwill valuation, they obtained damages and successfully defended the counterclaim, and were therefore entitled to costs.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) and proportionality, the court fixed costs at $200,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes on a partial indemnity basis.

The court also ordered interest under s. 127(1) of the Courts of Justice Act at 4.3% from the departure date for the portion of the judgment reflecting the amount owing on departure, with exceptions for NRF payments and capital payout timing.

The applicants sought to set aside an international commercial arbitration award arising from a failed commercial real estate relationship.

The court held that the arbitration agreement did not bar recourse under Article 34 of the Model Law where mandatory procedural protections and public policy were engaged.

The arbitral tribunal's undisclosed meeting with a prior adjudicator without notice to the parties breached the parties' arbitration agreement and met the threshold for potential relief under Article 34(2)(a)(iv).

However, weighing the seriousness of the breach against prejudice, waiver-related conduct, and the practical consequences of setting aside the award, the court exercised its discretion not to disturb the award.

The Crown appealed a directed verdict acquitting the respondent of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

At trial, the judge excluded the breath certificate after the Crown closed its case, finding insufficient evidence that the respondent was served with a true copy, and refused to let the Crown re-open its case to clarify the officer's testimony.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court held that while the late objection was permissible, the trial judge erred in refusing to let the Crown re-open its case and erred in law by granting a directed verdict when there was some evidence of service.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

In a Commercial List application arising from a share purchase transaction, the applicant sought to compel arbitration of post-closing inventory, working capital, and holdback adjustment disputes, along with declarations concerning ownership of inventory and equipment.

The respondents argued that arbitration was premature because the court first had to determine what constituted inventory and whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction.

The court rejected that position, applied the competence-competence principle, and held that the arbitral process mandated by the SPA had to proceed.

The court also declared that the applicant owned the disputed inventory and equipment, vacated prior interim access orders, and refused to convert the application into an action.

The applicant sought release on bail while charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder arising from a group attack on a public street.

Applying the reverse onus provisions and the tertiary ground framework, the court found the applicant had discharged the onus on the primary ground but failed on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court relied on strong surveillance evidence, the applicant's alleged misleading police statement, the inadequacy of the proposed supervision plan, the gravity of the offences, and the likelihood of a lengthy penitentiary sentence.

The bail application was dismissed.

In a murder prosecution, the Crown sought leave under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act to cross-examine a Crown witness who was a co-accused and had previously given a videotaped statement pursuant to a plea agreement.

The defence argued the statement was unreliable because of pressure arising from plea negotiations, fear of sanctions, and an apparent inconsistency with surveillance evidence.

The court held that those concerns could be adequately addressed through cross-examination and found the videotaped statement to be a reliable record given under circumstances indicating the witness understood the importance of telling the truth.

Applying the ends of justice analysis, the court granted leave to cross-examine the witness on the inconsistent portion of the statement.

The self-represented plaintiff sought damages for injuries allegedly sustained in a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

Liability for the collision was admitted, but the defendant contested damages, causation, and whether the claim met the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The court found no credible medical opinion supporting any serious or permanent injury caused by the collision, accepted that at most the plaintiff suffered an initial soft-tissue injury that resolved quickly, and found no credible proof of income loss or out-of-pocket expense.

The action was dismissed.

The accused, a 23-year-old first-time offender, was convicted of dangerous driving (racing) causing death and bodily harm after engaging in a high-speed street race that resulted in the other driver losing control, striking an innocent bystander's vehicle, killing the other racing driver, and seriously injuring the bystander.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day, while the defence sought a 90-day intermittent sentence.

The court balanced the principles of denunciation and general deterrence against the principle of restraint for youthful first offenders.

The accused was sentenced to 18 months in custody, a 5-year driving prohibition, a DNA order, and a weapons prohibition.

This was a costs decision following an earlier motion in a family law proceeding.

The court held that the respondent achieved primary success on the motion and was entitled to costs.

Taking into account the parties' submissions, proportionality, and the reasonable expectations of the parties, the court fixed costs at $2,750 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes, payable within 60 days.

This was a costs endorsement following an earlier motion in which the defendant obtained alternative relief by way of a stay.

Both sides sought partial indemnity costs.

The court held the moving defendant was basically the successful party and that costs should follow the event.

Applying proportionality and the parties' reasonable expectations, the court fixed costs at $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable within 60 days.

Following marital breakdown, the court determined unresolved property issues concerning ownership of the matrimonial home and equalization of net family property.

The court rejected the applicant's position that title in her sole name reflected intended sole ownership, and declared a resulting trust in favour of the respondent for a one-half ownership interest in the matrimonial home.

Applying the statutory equalization scheme and the unconscionability analysis under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act, the court held that equal sharing remained appropriate despite the substantial post-separation increase in the home's value.

The court accepted the respondent's business valuation evidence, rejected multiple allegations of hidden assets or depletion, ordered an equalization payment of $390,658.60, awarded prejudgment interest only on that amount, and awarded costs to the respondent.

The applicant sought a declaration that funds in jointly held bank accounts formed part of the deceased's estate under a resulting trust.

Applying the presumption governing gratuitous transfers to independent adult children, the court held the respondents rebutted the presumption on a balance of probabilities through objective and documentary evidence showing a longstanding intention to benefit the respondent daughter by survivorship.

The court declined to strike challenged affidavit evidence, but accorded it little weight.

The application was dismissed.