SCJ 2016

The plaintiff sued a fraternal organization and several of its members.

The parties negotiated a settlement, but the plaintiff unilaterally settled with the US defendants and purported to withdraw from the settlement with the Ontario defendants just before a convention, citing delays in receiving signed documents and funds.

The Ontario defendants brought a motion to enforce the settlement under Rule 49.09.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff had not made a deadline an essential term of the agreement and suffered no prejudice, as he had already achieved his primary goal of reinstatement through the US settlement.

The defendant brought a motion to stay a writ of possession and notice to vacate his residential property, and sought an extension of time to perfect a long-dormant Divisional Court appeal of a summary judgment granting possession to the plaintiff.

The court found the defendant had not maintained an intention to appeal, provided no satisfactory explanation for a 19-month delay, and engaged in deceptive conduct including relying on a fabricated consent letter.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed, the appeal was dismissed for delay, and the stay was denied, save for a brief extension to allow the defendant's family to relocate.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a full indemnity basis due to the defendant's reprehensible conduct.

A case conference was held in an action brought by a self-represented plaintiff alleging Charter breaches due to frequent lockdowns at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

The court approved the parties' agreed discovery plan, scheduled a further case conference to discuss next steps, and issued general case management directions, including that no motions may be brought without leave.

The accused was tried before a judge alone on one count of sexual touching of a complainant under fourteen and three counts of sexual assault, including one count arising from adult sexual intercourse years later.

Applying the W. (D.) framework, the court accepted the complainant’s evidence about the historical assaults, found the accused’s denials unreliable, and held the Crown had proven the first three counts beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the complainant was under fourteen when the abuse began and further held that, in any event, the accused occupied and abused a position of trust, negating consent.

On the final count concerning the 2013 encounter, the court found the complainant credible but was left with a reasonable doubt about non-consent at the moment of intercourse and entered an acquittal.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against Walmart Canada Inc. and PNI Digital Media Inc. following a data breach at Walmart's online photocentre.

The parties reached a settlement agreement providing for credit monitoring and reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses up to a combined maximum of $750,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent to certify the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes.

The court found that all criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met and granted the motion.

The respondent father brought a motion to continue an order suspending the applicant mother's access to the children and restraining her from communicating with them.

The court found that the mother had engaged in a prolonged campaign of emotional abuse, manipulation, and denigration of the father, which had destabilized the children.

Since the suspension of access, the children had thrived in the father's care.

The court held that it was in the children's best interests to continue the access suspension and restraining orders, with a provision for limited, supervised communication in the future.

The plaintiff brought a motion to prevent the administrative dismissal of his action for delay, establish a timetable, and amend his Statement of Claim to add a claim for shares in lieu of cash payment and to add a new corporate defendant.

The defendants opposed the amendment for shares, arguing it was a new cause of action barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the proposed amendment arose from the same factual situation as the original claim and was therefore not a new cause of action.

The court granted the motion to amend the pleadings, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, and breach of bail conditions arising from a short-lived relationship with the complainant.

The Crown's case relied almost entirely on the testimony of the complainant.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be highly inconsistent, contradictory, and in some instances, entirely fabricated, including a bizarre story about being threatened by the mafia disguised as police officers.

Applying the principles of reasonable doubt to credibility findings, the court concluded it was impossible to determine which material parts of the complainant's testimony were true.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The applicant father brought a motion to increase his access to the parties' three-year-old child.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer had conducted an investigation and recommended a gradual increase in access, noting that the father's doctor had no concerns about his pain medication management.

The respondent mother opposed the increase, citing ongoing concerns about the father's prescription medication use.

The court found the mother's concerns were unfounded and contrary to objective medical evidence, and granted the motion to increase the father's access.

The applicant father sought the return of his two children to England under the Hague Convention.

The mother had moved to Canada with the children under a temporary relocation agreement but later refused to return them.

The court found that the children were habitually resident in England, the father had custody rights which he was exercising, and he did not consent or acquiesce to their permanent relocation.

The court rejected the mother's defences under Articles 12 and 13 of the Hague Convention, finding no grave risk of harm.

The application was granted and the children were ordered returned to England.

The applicant father sought the return of his 12-year-old child to Brazil under the Hague Convention, alleging wrongful retention by the respondent mother in Ontario.

The mother conceded the retention was wrongful but raised defences under Article 13, arguing a grave risk of harm and that the child objected to returning.

The court found insufficient evidence of a grave risk of physical or psychological harm.

While acknowledging the child was mature and objected to returning, the court concluded the child's reasons were not substantial enough to meet the exceptional circumstances required to override the mandatory return provisions.

The application was granted and the child was ordered returned to Brazil.

The accused was charged with firearms offences after police found a handgun in a plastic bag during a "wellness check" in a residential building stairwell.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude the evidence, arguing the search violated his s. 8 rights.

The court found the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the bag and that the police lacked reasonable suspicion for an investigative detention or grounds for an arrest under the Trespass to Property Act.

Finding that the officers fabricated an after-the-fact justification for the search and were not forthright with the court, the judge excluded the firearm under s. 24(2) of the Charter, leading to the dismissal of the charges.

In a proposed class action regarding youth detention centres, the plaintiff sued the Crown for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and Charter violations, explicitly limiting the claim to the Crown's several liability.

The Crown issued third party claims against the NGOs that operated some of the centres.

The plaintiff and the NGOs moved to strike the third party claims.

The court granted the motions, applying the principle that where a plaintiff limits their claim to the defendant's proportionate degree of fault, a third party claim for contribution and indemnity is legally untenable.

The plaintiff commenced an action against a cafe seeking damages for alleged human rights violations against a disabled friend, building defects, and his subsequent banishment from the premises which caused him a loss of social life.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the action was frivolous or vexatious.

The court found that the plaintiff had no standing to sue for building defects and that the law offers no remedy for the loss of social life resulting from being excluded from a private business.

The action was dismissed as frivolous as it had no reasonable chance of success.

In a proposed class action regarding the use of secure isolation in youth detention centres, the Crown brought a motion seeking production of the representative plaintiff's Youth Records.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to order production under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court held that while it could not directly order production of the records, it had jurisdiction under the Class Proceedings Act to order the plaintiff to apply to the Youth Justice Court for access to the records.

The court ordered the plaintiff to make the application, failing which the proposed class action would be stayed.

The applicants brought a motion under s. 8 of the Charter challenging the installation of police video surveillance cameras in the hallways of their condominium buildings.

The police had installed some cameras with the consent of condominium management prior to obtaining a general warrant, and failed to disclose these prior installations when applying for the warrant.

The court held that the warrantless installation based on management's consent did not violate s. 8, as there is a diminished expectation of privacy in condominium hallways.

While the failure to disclose the prior installations breached the duty of full, fair and frank disclosure, the court found the omission was not material to the issuance of the warrant.

The motion was dismissed.

The parties were subject to a consent interim order granting the respondent father access to the children three days a week.

The father sought to vary the order to include holiday access and sleepovers, while the applicant mother argued the status quo should be maintained until the Office of the Children's Lawyer completed its report.

The court found the status quo had already changed since the father moved out and the mother had previously consented to sleepovers.

The court ordered expanded interim access for the father, including holiday time and sleepovers, subject to strict conditions to manage the child's pet allergies.

Following a decision on the merits in two related applications, the successful applicant sought costs.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of the costs award and argued for no costs or a nominal amount.

The court declined to reconsider the entitlement to costs, noting that costs are always in play and should be addressed during the hearing.

The court considered the applicant's non-compliant offers to settle and the excessive time spent on examinations by both parties.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $62,510.85, inclusive of disbursements and HST, after making a reduction for unnecessary examination time.

The accused, an 18-year-old with no criminal record, sought a bail review after being detained on firearms and drug charges.

The Justice of the Peace had denied bail solely on the tertiary ground, finding that public confidence would be undermined if released, despite a strong bail plan involving his parents as sureties.

The Superior Court granted the review, holding that the Justice of the Peace erred by failing to consider the strength of the bail plan and the accused's personal circumstances within the tertiary ground analysis.

The accused was released on strict house arrest with increased sureties.

The offender, an Aboriginal man with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and a lengthy criminal record, was sentenced for sexually assaulting an intoxicated and unconscious victim and breaching his probation.

The court weighed the profound violation of the victim's sexual integrity and the offender's breach of trust against his severe childhood trauma and intergenerational trauma.

The court imposed a total sentence of two years in prison, reduced to ten months after crediting 14 months for pre-sentence custody, with no further probation ordered.