SCJ 2016

The applicant sought to stay the tax sale of his commercial condominium due to property tax arrears, claiming he was entitled to tax relief for sickness or extreme poverty.

The respondent municipality brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application based on a prior settlement agreement.

The court found that the parties had reached a binding settlement to dismiss the application without costs.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant's underlying claim for tax relief fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Assessment Review Board, and the applicant failed to meet the test for an interlocutory injunction.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought an interim order for costs against the LawPro defendants to fund their action for malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and negligent investigation arising from a prior arson prosecution.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish impecuniosity with robust particularity, as they had substantial real estate equity and failed to account for over $1.2 million previously paid to them by LawPro.

Furthermore, the court found no special circumstances warranting an advance costs order, as the case was a private dispute without a broader public interest.

The plaintiff was injured when she fell while chasing a rolling shopping cart in a sloped parking garage at a shopping mall.

The defendant mall owners moved for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's 'unsafe parking lot' theory, as the defendants provided uncontradicted expert evidence that the ramp complied with safety standards.

However, the court deferred judgment on the 'unsafe shopping cart' theory, giving the plaintiff an opportunity to amend her pleadings, demand a defence from the retailer that provided the cart, and obtain expert evidence.

The Estate Trustee applied to rectify a drafting error in the deceased's Secondary Will.

The will mistakenly directed the redemption of 150 Class D shares to fund a $2 million bequest, but the deceased owned Class E shares, and 300 shares were required to generate the necessary after-tax proceeds.

The drafting solicitor admitted the error.

The deceased's widow opposed the rectification, arguing it should await the trial of her separate negligence claim against the solicitor.

The court applied the Robinson test, found the solicitor misunderstood or failed to carry out the testator's instructions, and granted the rectification to reflect the deceased's true intentions.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's personal injury action, the successful defendant sought substantial indemnity costs based on the plaintiff's fabricated claims and an unaccepted offer to settle.

The court held that Rule 49.10 does not permit substantial indemnity costs for a successful defendant, and the plaintiff's conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible conduct required to justify elevated costs.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs in the amount of $193,043.98.

The appellant appealed two separate convictions resulting from guilty pleas to charges including uttering death threats, criminal harassment, and failing to comply with a recognizance.

He argued that his pleas were uninformed and involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically alleging a failure to advise him of the immigration consequences of his pleas and the elements of the offences.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeals, finding the appellant's testimony lacked credibility and that he failed to establish either incompetence by his former counsel or any resulting prejudice.

The applicants sought a determination of privilege claims over documents seized by the Ontario Provincial Police during a fraud investigation.

The court ruled that draft letters and internal emails prepared for counsel's review were privileged.

Regarding copies of non-privileged documents gathered for a lawyer's brief, the court analyzed conflicting appellate authorities and concluded that such copies are only protected by litigation privilege if their gathering reflects specialized skill and knowledge, and provided the original documents are otherwise produced.

The accused applied for a bail review after being denied bail on nine firearm-related charges.

The accused argued there was a material change in circumstances based on a firearm property report indicating blank bullets were used, and a new proposed plan of supervision involving his common law spouse as a surety.

The court found that the report did not materially change the Crown's case and that the new supervision plan was deficient.

The court concluded there was a substantial likelihood the accused would re-offend and that his detention was necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking unpaid bonus payments after resigning from his employment.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff forfeited his entitlement to the bonus because the incentive plan required active employment at the time of payout.

The court found that the plan documents and employment letter clearly set out the active employment requirement, that the plaintiff had notice of it, and that the requirement did not contravene the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The plaintiff's motion was dismissed, and summary judgment was granted in favour of the defendants.

The applicant sought an order discharging a transformer easement registered on its property in 1965 in favour of the Crown, which was ancillary to an approach lighting easement for the Windsor Airport.

The applicant argued the easement had been abandoned or had expired by its terms.

The court found that while abandonment was not proven, the easement had expired by its own terms because technological advances, including GPS navigation and self-contained transformers in modern approach lights, rendered the stand-alone transformer obsolete.

The court ordered the easement discharged.

The applicant sought a bail review after his mother withdrew as his surety due to personal tensions, resulting in his detention.

The Justice of the Peace had previously rejected a proposal for the applicant's step-father to act as surety while living in the same residence.

The Superior Court found that the applicant had never breached his release conditions and that the issues were interpersonal rather than related to bail compliance.

The court granted the bail review, allowing the applicant's step-father and cousin to act as sureties with a combined pledge of $2,000.

Following competing motions regarding the jointly owned matrimonial home, both parties sought costs.

The respondent had successfully moved to refinance the property, while the applicant's motion for immediate partition and sale was dismissed.

The court found that the applicant acted unreasonably by attempting to resile from a prior agreement regarding the refinancing.

The respondent was awarded costs fixed at $3,500.

The respondent sought costs of over $16,000 for several case conferences and a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant, who was later represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee, had failed to attend conferences and her former counsel caused undue delay.

The court awarded the respondent $4,000 in costs payable by the applicant for the conferences and motion preparation, and $1,500 payable personally by the applicant's former counsel for unnecessary attendances caused by her delay and unresponsiveness.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' pleadings or, in the alternative, to compel answers to undertakings and for security for costs.

The action involved a $90 million real estate development dispute.

The court found that the individual defendant had repeatedly failed to answer hundreds of undertakings from his discovery and had breached multiple court orders, causing significant delay.

Although the plaintiffs withdrew their request to strike the pleadings, the court ordered the defendant to pay $100,000 into court as security for costs to enforce its processes against a wealthy party who abused the court system.

The plaintiff brought an action to invalidate her late mother's 2007 will, which left the entire estate to the defendant, her brother.

The plaintiff alleged the will was the product of undue influence.

The court reviewed the history of the mother's changing wills and powers of attorney, the strained relationship between the plaintiff and the mother, and the mother's diminished capacity.

The court found that while there were suspicious circumstances, the mother had her own reasons to disinherit the plaintiff and retained a strong will.

The court concluded the 2007 will was the product of the mother's own volition and dismissed the action.

The Crown appealed a 5.5-month conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for the sexual assault of an intoxicated, sleeping complainant.

The trial judge had imposed the conditional sentence largely to avoid collateral immigration consequences that would trigger the respondent's deportation.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in principle by failing to properly weigh deterrence and denunciation, and by using immigration consequences to impose a sentence outside the appropriate range.

The sentence was varied to 5.5 months of incarceration, though the respondent was not required to serve further time as the conditional sentence had already been completed.

The applicant, charged with firearms offences and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, sought a bail review after being denied bail by a Justice of the Peace.

The applicant proposed a house arrest plan with his aunt and father as sureties.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the proposed release plan unworkable due to the sureties' financial limitations, the applicant's lack of employment prospects, and the fact that one of the firearms was found on the proposed surety's property.

The accused was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder after stabbing an unarmed victim at a party.

Prior to sentencing, the defence requested an inquiry into a post-verdict comment made by a juror to the victim's family.

The court declined to hold an inquiry, finding it would violate jury secrecy and that the comment did not suggest any impropriety.

On sentencing, the Crown sought 12 years of parole ineligibility while the defence sought 10 years.

After weighing the aggravating factors of the senseless, unprovoked killing against the mitigating factors of the accused's youth, lack of criminal record, and remorse, the court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment with parole ineligibility fixed at 11 years.

The appellant appealed her conviction for driving with excess blood alcohol.

At trial, the Crown relied on a certificate of a qualified technician, which required proving the breath sample was taken within two hours of the offence.

The trial judge inferred the time of the accident based on the location, traffic volume, and prompt emergency response.

The Superior Court of Justice held that this inference amounted to speculation rather than a rational conclusion, as probabilities are insufficient to establish the statutory condition precedent.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal entered.

Following a trial where the defendant was successful, the court received submissions on costs.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $44,390.72.

The plaintiff argued the amount was disproportionate given the amount at issue was approximately $53,000.

Balancing the principles of indemnity, proportionality, and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party, the court fixed costs payable to the defendant at $24,000 all inclusive.