SCJ 2017

The plaintiff tenant brought an action against the defendant landlord for wrongful termination of a commercial lease for a dry cleaning business.

The landlord brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and for judgment on its counterclaim for damages.

The court found that the tenant was on a month-to-month tenancy and had breached the lease by failing to comply with regulations governing dry cleaning businesses.

The court held that the lease was lawfully terminated, dismissed the plaintiff's claim, and granted the landlord's counterclaim for damages, reducing the claim for rent arrears.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a civil claim for sexual assault, battery, and breach of fiduciary duty against her former criminal lawyer.

The defendant had previously pleaded guilty to criminal assault for the same incident but filed no evidence on the summary judgment motion, citing his Alzheimer's diagnosis.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial on liability, as the defendant conceded the facts supporting the criminal conviction.

The court refused to adjourn the motion for a defence medical due to the defendant's delay.

The court awarded the plaintiff $70,000 in general non-pecuniary damages and $5,000 for future therapy costs.

The offender pleaded guilty to arson with disregard for human life after pouring gasoline inside his home during a domestic dispute, causing a fire that destroyed the house and killed two pets.

The Crown sought a net sentence of 12 months in jail (effectively 3 years minus 24 months pre-sentence custody credit) plus 2 years probation, while the defence sought a net sentence of 3 to 6 months.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, imposing the Crown's requested sentence of 12 months further custody, 2 years probation, and a restitution order of over $92,000 to the insurer.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment by the defendants, the court determined the issue of costs based on written submissions.

The court found the defendants' submissions reasonable and ordered the self-represented plaintiff to pay costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $30,073.01, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The accused, owner of a payroll services company, was charged with fraud, theft, and uttering forged documents.

She was alleged to have over-deducted Employer Health Tax from clients and failed to remit funds to the Canada Revenue Agency, keeping the excess funds in her trust account for personal use.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as improbable and contradictory to documentary evidence.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, concluding she intentionally defrauded clients of approximately $366,000 and forged bank documents to conceal the missing remittances.

The accused pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing bodily harm after passing a vehicle, running a stop sign, and colliding with another vehicle while having alcohol in his system.

The victim suffered a broken collar bone and permanent shoulder impairment.

The court accepted a joint submission, sentencing the accused to 90 days of intermittent imprisonment, probation, and a one-year driving prohibition.

The Crown brought a bail review application seeking to detain the accused, who had been released by a justice of the peace on charges including robbery with weapons.

The Superior Court found that the justice of the peace erred in principle by inadequately considering the gravity of the offences, the accused's lack of connection to the jurisdiction, and his history of failing to attend court.

Conducting a de novo hearing, the court ordered the accused detained on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds under section 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, an inmate at a correctional centre, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after viciously attacking his cellmate while intoxicated on 'home brew'.

The victim suffered significant injuries including facial fractures.

The court weighed the multiplicity of aggravating factors, including the accused's prior record and the vulnerability of the confined victim, against the mitigating factor of the guilty plea.

Applying the principle of totality, the court imposed a sentence of 4 years consecutive to the sentence the accused was already serving, less 18 months credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of 2.5 years consecutive.

Following a motion to change regarding a child's school enrollment and a cross-motion to vary custody, both parties sought costs.

The court found that the applicant father was more successful overall, as the respondent mother's cross-motion to vary joint custody was an unreasonable and overly aggressive response.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle and the time spent by counsel, ultimately awarding the applicant father fixed costs of $12,299.19.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their Statement of Claim, which originally sought damages for flooding allegedly caused by the defendant municipality's improper installation of a culvert.

The proposed amendments sought to add a new cause of action regarding a boundary dispute over a driveway.

The municipality consented to amendments related to the culvert but opposed those related to the boundary dispute.

The court dismissed the contested amendments, finding they constituted an entirely new cause of action that would unduly delay the trial and cause non-compensable prejudice to the municipality.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a threshold motion arguing the plaintiff was barred from recovering non-pecuniary and health care damages under the Insurance Act.

The jury had awarded $10,000 in general damages and $37,133.13 in medical expenses.

The trial judge applied the three-pronged test from Meyer v. Bright and found the plaintiff, a former school principal, suffered permanent serious impairment due to chronic pain syndrome and soft tissue injuries.

The court held the plaintiff met the statutory threshold, dismissing the defendants' motion and allowing the plaintiff to recover the damages awarded by the jury.

The applicant and respondent are brothers and co-executors of their father's estate.

The applicant sought a declaration that five joint bank accounts held by the deceased and the respondent were held in trust for the estate.

The respondent argued the accounts were gifted to him to equalize lifetime gifts made to the applicant.

The court found the respondent failed to corroborate his evidence under s. 13 of the Evidence Act and failed to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust.

The court also dismissed arguments that the claim was statute-barred or precluded by a release, as the applicant was unaware of the accounts when the release was signed.

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant half the value of the accounts.

The applicant husband brought a motion for an order allowing him to attend the questioning of the respondent wife.

The wife opposed his attendance, citing exceptional circumstances based on longstanding abuse and control consistent with their cultural background.

The court found that the wife did not meet the burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances to displace the husband's right to be present.

The court ordered the questioning to proceed with the husband present, but directed that he not speak and be seated away from the wife and out of her line of sight to avoid possible intimidation.

The offender was convicted by a jury of impaired operation causing death and criminal negligence causing death after driving his truck into a concrete median while highly intoxicated, unlicensed, and uninsured.

Following the collision, the offender engaged in egregious post-offence conduct by moving the deceased passenger's body to the driver's seat and repeatedly lying to police and medical staff to deflect blame.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, sentencing the offender to 9 years in the penitentiary and imposing a 12-year driving prohibition.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims of misrepresentation and breach of the Consumer Protection Act arising from a vehicle purchase and credit rebuilding program.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for leave to amend her statement of claim to include admissions made by the corporate defendant in a related OMVIC proceeding.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend the pleading, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that genuine issues for trial existed regarding the alleged misrepresentations and statutory violations that could not be resolved on the documentary record alone.

The Crown applied for a bail review of a release order for the respondent, who was charged with trafficking significant quantities of cocaine and fentanyl.

The Crown argued the Justice of the Peace failed to properly consider the tertiary ground for detention under s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court of Justice agreed, finding that the Justice of the Peace failed to explain why detention was not required given the extremely strong Crown case, the gravity of the offences, and the public safety risks associated with fentanyl.

The application was allowed, the release order was vacated, and the respondent was ordered detained in custody.

The defendant Sidhu brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim of negligent misrepresentation against him.

The plaintiff alleged that Sidhu made false representations about the potential earnings and mileage for an owner-operator trucking business, which induced the plaintiff to incorporate and suffer financial losses.

The court applied the Cognos test and found that there were genuine issues requiring trial regarding the existence of a special relationship, the accuracy of the representations, negligence, reasonable reliance, and causation.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that credibility assessments were necessary, and awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff.

In a blended voir dire, the Crown sought to admit the accused's confessions regarding two armoured truck robberies, while the accused sought their exclusion under the Charter.

The court found the statements were voluntary and dismissed claims of arbitrary detention and initial right to counsel breaches.

However, the court found a s. 10(b) breach occurred when police failed to re-advise the accused of his right to counsel after questioning shifted to a separate, earlier robbery, which significantly changed his jeopardy.

Statements regarding the earlier robbery were excluded under s. 24(2).

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm, aggravated assault, and sexual assault against his intimate partner.

The charges arose from events where the accused struck the complainant in the face, pushed her out of a moving van and directed the driver to drive away while she was partially underneath it, and later forced her to have sex while she was recovering from her injuries.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejecting the defence's theory of self-defence and accidental injury.

The accused was found guilty on all three charges.

The applicant sought to challenge an arbitral award, arguing the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by misapplying French law to read a diligent management requirement into an Earn-Out Clause, despite an Entire Agreement Clause.

The applicant also alleged a denial of natural justice due to the arbitrator's refusal to allow a sur-sur-reply.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the challenge, finding the arbitrator's interpretation was an unreviewable issue of mixed fact and law, not a true jurisdictional error.

The court also held the arbitrator's procedural ruling was a reasonable exercise of discretion that did not deny the applicant a fair hearing.

The respondent's parallel application to recognize the award was granted.