SCJ 2016

The court issued a supplementary costs endorsement regarding specific disbursements claimed by the defendants, Co-operators.

After receiving an explanatory letter from the defendants' counsel and no response from the plaintiffs, the court found the disbursements for photocopies, binding, scanning, and laser printing to be reasonable.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants $11,406.37 for these disbursements.

In a slip and fall action arising from an incident in a grocery store parking lot, the parties raised evidentiary issues regarding the admissibility of business records before the commencement of a jury trial.

The plaintiff sought to introduce Ministry of Transportation records regarding weather and road conditions, while the defendants sought to introduce daily work sheets to establish their snow and ice clearing system.

The court found both sets of records to be logically relevant to the live issues of prevailing weather conditions and the defendants' response.

The court admitted both sets of records, noting that any potential prejudice from the MTO records could be addressed with a limiting instruction to the jury.

The defendants in a construction dispute moved for leave to amend their Response to the plaintiff's Request to Admit.

The court granted leave under s. 67(2) of the Construction Lien Act, finding the step necessary to resolve ambiguities and expedite the trial.

Applying the three-part test for withdrawing admissions, the court allowed the amendments, noting they raised triable issues regarding the validity and authenticity of the alleged contracts, there was a reasonable explanation for the initial deficient responses by former counsel, and the plaintiff suffered no non-compensable prejudice.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for damages arising from a motorcycle accident allegedly caused by an unidentified vehicle.

The insurer argued the claim was statute-barred due to the plaintiff's failure to report the accident to the police or the insurer within the prescribed time limits, and that the accident could not have occurred as described.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief from forfeiture, whether the identity of the vehicle was ascertainable with due diligence, and whether the plaintiff is entitled to OPCF 44R coverage.

The respondent was successful on a motion to change, reducing his spousal support obligation from $900 to $725 per month.

He sought costs of $18,000 on an all-inclusive basis.

The applicant, who was self-represented and impecunious, argued that each party should bear their own costs.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24(11), including the applicant's financial circumstances, the extent of the variation, and the respondent's reasonable offer to settle.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $5,000, to be set off against his outstanding spousal support arrears.

The parties appeared for a case conference to determine the procedure for a mini-trial directed by a previous endorsement.

The court ordered specific guidelines for the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, including out-of-court examination with translation for an elderly witness, viva voce testimony from a transaction lawyer, and the proper production of a family doctor's expert report.

A two-day hearing was scheduled.

The moving party brought a motion for temporary relief within a motion to change a final consent order, seeking to terminate his spousal support obligations and fix arrears.

He argued that his income had significantly decreased since his days as a successful mining executive, culminating in a consumer proposal.

The court dismissed the motion for temporary relief, finding no material change in circumstances because his current income was comparable to the income known and imputed to him at the time the final consent order was made in 2014.

The court held that a trial was necessary to resolve conflicting evidence regarding his income deductions and actual financial means.

The appellant appealed his convictions for intimidation, assault, and sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended defence evidence and rendered inconsistent verdicts by acquitting him on one count of sexual assault while convicting on others.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's assessment of the defence witness's credibility was justified and did not misapprehend the evidence.

The court also held that the verdicts were not inconsistent, as each sexual assault count related to a distinct event and had to be evaluated individually based on the evidence of consent at the time.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging a breach of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 48 months, well above the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The court found that the case was not particularly complex and that the Crown's reliance on the previous state of the law was unreasonable, particularly given the accused's continuous pre-trial custody and the Crown's failure to mitigate delay caused by its own unavailability.

The application was granted and a stay of proceedings was entered.

The representative plaintiff in a class action regarding pension benefits for employees transferred to Community Care Access Centres moved for settlement approval, fee approval, and an amendment to the class definition.

The plaintiff alleged the government breached a 'no loss' commitment regarding pension benefits.

The court approved the amendment to the class definition to include certain union members.

The court also approved the settlement of $752,500, providing $2,500 per class member, finding it fair and reasonable given the significant litigation risks, including a limitation period defence.

Class counsel fees up to $75,000 were also approved.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend his Statement of Claim to add a claim for contribution and indemnity under the Environmental Protection Act, following an Environmental Review Tribunal decision reducing a municipal cleanup order against him.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the proposed amendments were statute-barred and untenable.

The court granted leave to amend, finding that the legal issues regarding limitation periods and statutory interpretation were novel and not plainly and obviously untenable, and that the defendants would not suffer non-compensable prejudice.

The plaintiff, a professional hockey player, sued the defendant for wrongful termination of a promotional contract.

The defendant had terminated the agreement citing the plaintiff's demotion to a minor league team and the circulation of nude photographs of the plaintiff on the internet.

The court found that the defendant was not entitled to rescind the contract as it had received much of what it bargained for, and the morals clause did not apply retrospectively to the private sharing of intimate photos.

The plaintiff was awarded $162,500 in damages for the remainder of the contract term and its renewal.

A trial of an issue was directed to determine the ownership of two skidders between the estate of the deceased and the respondent.

The respondent claimed ownership of one skidder as a gift and an interest in the other via a mechanics lien.

The court found the respondent had no interest in the first skidder due to a failure to register a lien, making it an estate asset.

However, the court accepted corroborated testimony from a beneficiary that the second skidder was gifted to the respondent prior to the deceased's death, satisfying section 13 of the Evidence Act.

The second skidder was declared the property of the respondent.

Following a jury conviction for sexual assault of a child complainant, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence after emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and separation from society in child sexual abuse cases.

The court found significant aggravating factors including the complainant's young age, online grooming, the offender's knowledge of her age, digital penetration, and serious victim impact.

The court also considered the offender's Métis background, reported childhood sexual abuse, family instability, and other Gladue factors, but held that restorative considerations could not displace a penitentiary term for this offence.

A three-year custodial sentence was imposed together with ancillary protective orders.

The moving party brought a motion for contempt against the respondent for failing to comply with two previous court orders requiring him to produce financial documents and attend an examination in aid of execution regarding an unpaid judgment.

The court applied the three-part test for civil contempt and found the respondent intentionally breached the clear and unequivocal orders despite having actual knowledge of them.

The respondent was found in contempt, ordered to pay substantial indemnity costs, and given an opportunity to purge his contempt before the penalty hearing.

The respondent husband brought a motion to change a prior order that granted the applicant wife exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The husband argued the prior order was made without adequate notice and that he was unable to attend the hearing.

The court found that notice was adequate and, although the husband had a satisfactory reason for missing the hearing, declined to return exclusive possession to him.

The court found the husband lacked the financial stability to maintain the home and had a history of neglecting the property, making it necessary for the wife to retain possession to preserve the asset for sale.

The accused was tried for the first-degree murder of his daughter and the attempted murder of his son after giving them sleep medication and alcohol during a suicide attempt.

During the pre-charge conference, defence counsel requested that criminal negligence causing death be left with the jury as a discrete included offence to first-degree murder.

The trial judge declined the request, ruling that in the circumstances of the case, criminal negligence causing death is manslaughter by another name and leaving both would unnecessarily complicate jury deliberations.

The appellant, an involuntary psychiatric patient diagnosed with schizophrenia, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming his treating physician's finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic and ancillary medications.

The appellant argued the Board misapplied the test for capacity and improperly shifted the burden of proof.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably applied the statutory test and Supreme Court jurisprudence in concluding the appellant's mental disorder prevented him from appreciating the reasonably foreseeable consequences of refusing treatment.

The plaintiff drywall contractor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant general contractor for the balance owing on a construction contract and for over $1.1 million in alleged extras.

The defendant admitted a portion of the contract balance and a portion of the extras but disputed the remainder, citing delays, deficiencies, and lack of written authorization for the extras.

The court granted partial summary judgment for the $750,641 admitted by the defendant but dismissed the balance of the motion, finding that the conflicting evidence regarding verbal authorizations, design changes, and project delays required a trial.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection, a deemed custody order in favour of the mother, and an order limiting the father's access to written communication.

The father opposed the motion, alleging the mother had engaged in parental alienation.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, concluding that the father's relentless focus on parental alienation had caused the child emotional harm and placed her at risk of physical harm, culminating in the child threatening self-harm with a knife.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the child in need of protection and ordering deemed custody to the mother with limited written access for the father.