SCJ 2017

The parties separated after a 30-year cohabitation.

At trial, the court determined the equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The applicant sought to include a $100,000 promissory note as a debt and exclude unvested stock options from his net family property.

The court drew an adverse inference from the applicant's failure to call expert evidence, excluding the promissory note debt and including the post-separation realized value of the stock options.

The court also awarded the respondent ongoing spousal support of $5,200 per month, recognizing both compensatory and non-compensatory entitlement arising from the long-term marriage.

The defendants requested a review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff, who had commenced multiple similar actions, sued various government entities and a legal clinic over his involuntary committal to a hospital in 2010.

The court found the statement of claim lacked material facts, contained grandiose and legally baseless claims, and was barred by the six-year limitation period under the Limitations Act.

The action was dismissed against all defendants.

The offender was found guilty of trafficking in crack cocaine and simple possession of crack cocaine.

The court considered the offender's lack of a prior criminal record, her employment history, her role as a caregiver for her mother, and the fact that her s. 10(b) Charter rights were breached by police delay in facilitating access to counsel.

Emphasizing the principles of denunciation and deterrence while acknowledging the strong mitigating factors, the court imposed a blended sentence consisting of a 90-day intermittent jail sentence for the trafficking charge and an 18-month conditional sentence for the possession charge.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice in an action alleging excessive force by police officers.

The plaintiff argued that because the Woodstock Police Services Board is funded by the municipality, the action constitutes relief against a municipality, which precludes a jury trial under section 108(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the Police Services Board maintains independence from the municipality and that an action against the Board is not equivalent to an action against the municipality.

The motion to strike the jury notice was dismissed.

The two accused were convicted of possessing loaded handguns, marijuana, and proceeds of crime.

One accused was also convicted of possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought sentences of 4 to 5.5 years, while the defence sought much lower sentences, citing a Charter breach for delayed bail hearings.

The court weighed the serious aggravating factors of guns and drugs against the mitigating factors of good rehabilitation prospects and the Charter breach.

Both accused were sentenced to two years less a day in custody, followed by probation.

During a multi-accused trial for second-degree murder, counsel for one of the co-accused suggested in his closing address that a witness had 'let the truth slip out' in a prior police statement when she mentioned seeing another co-accused with a knife.

The other co-accused brought an application for a mistrial, arguing the address was highly prejudicial.

The court dismissed the mistrial application, finding that the closing address did not compromise trial fairness and that any potential prejudice could be cured by a strong limiting instruction to the jury regarding the permissible use of prior inconsistent statements.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, brought an application for a directed verdict of acquittal at the conclusion of the Crown's case.

The moving parties argued that the rule in Hodge's Case should apply to directed verdict applications involving circumstantial evidence.

The court rejected this argument, holding that the test remains whether a properly instructed jury could reasonably convict, which involves only a limited weighing of circumstantial evidence.

Finding sufficient circumstantial evidence of identity and murderous intent for both moving parties, the court dismissed the directed verdict applications.

The accused were charged with second-degree murder.

Prior to jury selection, two of the accused brought a Charter application to exclude evidence of a street encounter with police the day after the homicide, arguing their rights under ss. 7, 8, 10(a), and 10(b) were violated.

The court found that the accused were psychologically detained when four officers approached them, separated them, and questioned them without advising them of their right to counsel.

The court held that the officers' failure to properly record the encounter and their attempts to minimize it as a 'social call' exacerbated the breach.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, and the court also noted the Crown failed to prove the voluntariness of the statements due to the lack of a reliable record.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff under Rule 56.01(1)(c) and (d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff had an unpaid costs order of $19,000 and outstanding executions exceeding $4,000,000.

The court found the defendants met their initial onus, and the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure to establish impecuniosity or demonstrate a good chance of success on the merits.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post $50,000 in security for costs in stages.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial on historical intrafamilial sexual offence allegations involving three complainants, the court applied the W.(D.) framework to determine whether the Crown had proved individual counts beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found some allegations involving ambiguous lap contact and an alleged kiss lacked sufficient surrounding circumstances to establish the requisite sexual purpose or violation of sexual integrity.

By contrast, the court accepted the evidence of two complainants concerning breast touching, breast licking, and oral-sex-related conduct as credible and reliable, and found that evidence sufficient to overwhelm the accused's denials.

The accused was acquitted on several counts and convicted on selected counts of sexual assault and sexual exploitation, with the potential application of the Keinapple principle left for a later date.

The moving party, Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for supplementary health benefits as barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff had previously settled a long-term disability claim with Great-West Life, which retroactively acknowledged her disability.

OLG argued the plaintiff knew her benefits were cancelled in 2008 for non-payment of premiums.

The court found multiple factual and legal issues requiring a trial, including whether OLG was obliged to pay the premiums during the acknowledged disability period, conflicting evidence regarding reinstatement agreements, and the effect of OLG's prior premium refunds.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The plaintiff, as assignee of a trustee in bankruptcy, brought a motion for summary judgment to recover $217,500 from the bankrupt's spouse.

The bankrupt had used his share of the proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned property to pay down the mortgage on a property purchased solely by his spouse.

The court found that the transfer was a transfer at undervalue under s. 96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court rejected the spouse's argument that they were dealing at arm's length, noting that spouses are presumed not to act at arm's length and her self-serving affidavit lacked supporting detail to rebut the presumption.

Summary judgment was granted.

The plaintiff, acting under an assignment from a trustee in bankruptcy, brought a partial summary judgment motion against the defendants for amounts allegedly owing on a shareholder loan account to the bankrupt company.

The defendants argued the loan was offset by payments made to creditors and unpaid wages.

The court rejected most of the defendants' evidence as lacking documentary support and found that payments made after bankruptcy could not be credited.

The court granted partial summary judgment for $161,724.75, finding no genuine issue for trial on that amount, while leaving the remaining $57,590.25 for trial.

This supplementary endorsement addresses the costs of an unsuccessful motion for leave to appeal brought by the plaintiff.

The defendants, having been entirely successful, were presumptively entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the amounts claimed by the defendants' counsel to be excessive for a straightforward leave to appeal motion heard in writing, particularly the time allocated for legal research and drafting.

The court significantly reduced the claimed costs, setting a cap for fees on such motions, and awarded specific amounts to each defendant group.

The defendants (Foodfest, Henry Ender, and Sue Ellen Ender) brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision that dismissed their summary judgment motion, which sought to dismiss the plaintiff's claims against them on the basis of limitation periods.

The court applied the strict two-part test for granting leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4).

It found no conflicting decisions on matters of principle and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order that transcended the immediate parties' interests.

The motion judge's finding that the discoverability of the conspiracy claims was a genuine issue requiring a trial was upheld.

Consequently, the motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The accused, Julian Justinico, was charged with sexual assault and breaking and entering to commit sexual assault against the complainant, SD.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's conduct and statements at a party prior to the assault, and DNA evidence found on the complainant's genitals.

The defence challenged the admissibility of similar act evidence and the reliability of DNA evidence for identity.

The court found the accused's prior conduct admissible as an admission and for animus/motive, and concluded that the DNA evidence, combined with other circumstantial evidence and the absence of benign explanations for transfer, established identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The court addressed a dispute between successive trustees in bankruptcy regarding the payment of fees in a no-asset estate.

The former proposal trustee, Dodick Landau Inc., opposed the motion by the substituted trustee, A. Farber & Partners Inc., for approval of its fees and discharge, arguing that Farber was required to pay Dodick Landau's fees under s. 36(2)(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court held that funds received by Farber from a secured creditor's indemnity were not "funds available" to the estate for the purpose of paying the former trustee, as these were third-party funds and not estate assets.

Farber's motion was granted, and Dodick Landau's opposition was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to enforce Minutes of Settlement, while the plaintiffs cross-moved to dismiss the defendant's motion and enforce the Minutes themselves.

A trial of an issue was held to determine if the plaintiffs had fulfilled their obligations under the settlement.

The court found that the plaintiffs had substantially complied with fence erection terms but failed to complete municipal grading requirements by the agreed deadline, which was an essential term.

Consequently, the plaintiffs were found in breach of the Minutes of Settlement, their motion was dismissed, and the defendant's motion was allowed.

The plaintiffs were ordered to complete the grading work and eliminate fence gaps within 100 days.

Peter Brooks was found guilty of second-degree murder.

This decision concerns his sentencing, specifically the period of parole ineligibility.

The court considered the brutal nature of the attack, the vulnerability of the victims, and the planned nature of the offence as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included Brooks' progressive neurocognitive disorder (dementia) and lack of prior criminal record.

Both Crown and defence jointly submitted for the minimum parole ineligibility period of 10 years.

The court accepted this, emphasizing public protection and denunciation while acknowledging the limited impact of rehabilitation and specific deterrence due to the offender's cognitive impairment.

Kari Holdings Inc., a secured creditor, brought a summary judgment motion against HSBC Bank Canada, alleging that HSBC improperly granted overdraft protection to their mutual debtor, C.I.F. Furniture Limited (CIF), and repaid itself using collateral subject to Kari's prior security interest.

Kari sought a declaration of priority and payment of $467,455 for the alleged overdrafts and $57,260 for credit card debt.

HSBC brought a cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing Kari's action.

The court dismissed Kari's motion and granted HSBC's cross-motion, finding that HSBC did not extend credit by way of overdraft and, alternatively, that CIF's repayments were made in the ordinary course of business, which was permitted under Kari's general security agreement.