SCJ 2016

The accused was charged with trafficking in a controlled substance after police observed him handing a coffee cup to another individual in a parking lot.

The recipient's vehicle was stopped shortly after, and police found 101 grams of heroin inside the coffee cup.

The court accepted the circumstantial evidence of the police officers, finding that the only logical inference was that the cup contained heroin when the accused delivered it.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with impaired driving causing death and bodily harm, dangerous driving, and failing to remain at the scene after striking two municipal workers with his truck.

The accused raised a defence of non-mental disorder automatism, arguing he was in a parasomniac state (sleep-driving) at the time of the collision.

The court rejected the automatism defence, finding the accused fell asleep at the wheel due to extreme fatigue and alcohol impairment, rather than a sleep disorder.

The accused was convicted of impaired driving causing death and bodily harm.

However, he was acquitted of dangerous driving because it was not reasonably foreseeable that he would fall asleep during the short drive, and acquitted of failing to remain because he was asleep during the collision and unaware it had occurred.

The court issued supplementary reasons to a ruling that dismissed a defence motion to read the defendant's statement into the record.

The court corrected its previous observation that the defence had ambushed the Crown with the motion, noting that the defence had verbally advised the Crown prior to the close of the Crown's case.

The original decision dismissing the motion remained in place, as the re-examination question did not infer that a statement had been provided.

Following an order setting aside a default judgment, the court determined the costs thrown away payable to the plaintiff and the costs of the motion payable to the defendant.

The plaintiff was awarded $16,500 in costs thrown away on a substantial indemnity basis, after reductions for unrelated enforcement proceedings and a recoverable sheriff's fee.

The defendant was awarded $3,500 in costs for the motion on a partial indemnity basis, as the court found the defendant's settlement offer did not trigger Rule 49 consequences and success was somewhat divided.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal, the plaintiff sought full or substantial indemnity costs, alleging the defendant engaged in improper conduct by initially offering insufficient severance.

The court found no improper, vexatious, or unnecessary conduct by the defendant that would warrant elevated costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $14,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, noting the straightforward nature of the proceeding.

During a trial, the defence brought a motion requiring the Crown to produce the defendant's complete police statement to the jury.

The defence argued that the Crown's re-examination of the lead investigator left the jury with the prejudicial understanding that the defendant had provided a statement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Crown's questions did not infer any statement was given to the police, and noted that the defence had improperly delayed bringing the application until after the Crown closed its case.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' personal injury action on summary judgment, the court determined the costs payable.

The defendants sought costs from the plaintiffs and argued the plaintiffs should also be liable for the costs of the third parties, whom the defendants had joined.

The court applied the general rule that an unsuccessful plaintiff is not responsible for the costs of third parties they did not sue, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from this rule.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants $44,000 in partial indemnity costs, while the defendants were ordered to pay the full costs claimed by the various third parties, totaling over $133,000.

The appellant spa owner appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding her liable for negligence after the respondent suffered severe facial infections from receiving electrolysis shortly after dermal filler injections.

The respondent cross-appealed the $6,000 damages award, seeking $25,000.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions on causation and negligence.

The cross-appeal on damages was also dismissed, as the award was not wholly erroneous, but the judgment was varied to include $1,400 in pre-judgment interest.

Following a successful motion by the plaintiff, the parties submitted written arguments regarding costs.

The defendant insurer sought costs against the plaintiff's counsel personally for allegedly unnecessary court appearances.

The court declined to award costs against counsel personally but significantly reduced the plaintiff's costs award to $1,750 due to the plaintiff's responsibility for delay and unnecessary expense.

Following the plaintiff's success in resisting an appeal from a Master's order, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale or, alternatively, on a partial indemnity scale.

The court found no reason to award costs on an elevated scale and fixed the plaintiff's costs on a partial indemnity basis at $4,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The applicant, who resides outside Ontario, applied under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act to rescind approximately $83,000 in support arrears.

The respondent brought a motion seeking to cross-examine the applicant on his affidavit and financial disclosure.

The court held that the Family Law Rules apply to ISOA proceedings and granted the motion, ordering the applicant to attend questioning in Ontario due to his history of chronic non-payment.

The individual defendants sought costs for two successful motions to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim and amended claim.

The plaintiff argued success was divided because leave to amend was granted, and that the costs claimed were excessive.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding the defendants were substantially successful.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no egregious misconduct by the plaintiff.

Applying the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality, the court awarded the individual defendants $18,052.30 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent brought a motion to remove the applicant's counsel and for equal parenting time.

The applicant brought a counter-motion for interim custody, access, and child support.

The court dismissed the motion to remove counsel.

Finding that the applicant was the primary parent prior to separation, the court granted interim custody to the applicant and specified access to the respondent, subject to conditions regarding alcohol consumption and smoking.

The respondent was also ordered to pay interim child support and a share of section 7 expenses.

The applicants sought a statutory injunction under section 380 of the City of Toronto Act to restrain the respondent from operating a commercial parking lot in contravention of a zoning by-law.

The respondent conceded the non-compliance but argued the parking lot was a legal non-conforming use.

The court found the applicants had standing as taxpayers and established a clear breach of the by-law.

The respondent failed to prove continuous use as a commercial parking lot since the by-law's passage, as the property was previously used as an accessory lot.

Finding no exceptional circumstances, the court granted the statutory injunction and related declaratory relief.

The respondent mother brought a motion for interim spousal support, child support, section 7 expenses, sole custody, and payment of matrimonial home expenses.

The court declined to impute income to the applicant father, finding insufficient evidence that his business failure or unemployment was deliberate.

Spousal support was dismissed as the father's income was below the $20,000 floor.

The father was ordered to pay interim child support based on an income of $15,900, along with a 50% contribution to summer camp expenses.

The requests for sole custody and matrimonial home expenses were dismissed, and costs were awarded to the father.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion to amend its Statement of Claim, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis relying on a provision in a construction bond.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding it unduly onerous and noting that only one of the three proposed amendments related to the enforcement of the bond.

Applying the principle of proportionality and the factors under Rule 57.01, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis at $12,000.

The applicant sought a declaration of a half-interest in a property registered solely in the respondent's name, based on the doctrine of joint family venture and unjust enrichment.

The parties cohabited for 16 years and had three children together.

The court found that the relationship constituted a joint family venture and that the respondent retained a disproportionate share of the wealth accumulated during the relationship.

The court ordered a monetary award of $595,530, representing half the net value of the property at the date of trial.

Additionally, the court imputed an annual income of $150,000 to the respondent for support purposes, finding him intentionally under-employed.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, brought a second application for the extradition of the respondent on charges of cross-border internet child sexual exploitation.

The first committal order was quashed on appeal due to insufficient evidence linking the respondent to the IP address.

In this second application, relying on both American and Canadian-gathered evidence, the court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the reasonable inference that the respondent committed the offences using his laptop and IP address.

The respondent's applications for further disclosure and Charter exclusion having been dismissed, the court ordered his committal for extradition.

The applicant, who was found not criminally responsible, brought an application for a writ of habeas corpus with mandamus in aid to review his detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care and order his immediate transfer to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

The Ontario Review Board had ordered his transfer to CAMH 'forthwith', but he had been waiting seven months due to a shortage of secure forensic beds.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had not established a deprivation of liberty caused specifically by the delay, and that the ORB order provided lawful authority for his continued interim detention at Waypoint until a bed became available at CAMH.

The parties were unable to agree on costs following a two-hour motion.

The court noted that the responding party's submissions suffered from hyperbole and caused unnecessary rancour, while the moving parties' costs request was wildly excessive and unsubstantiated.

The court fixed costs at $5,000 in the cause.