SCJ 2017

The plaintiff son brought an action against his defendant father seeking an order to compel access to his mother.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found it had no jurisdiction to compel mentally competent adults to interact with one another and that the statement of claim raised no genuine issue for trial.

The plaintiff's request to amend his pleadings to add various tort claims was denied as the claims were statute-barred and vexatious.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, the action was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The children's aid society brought a status review application seeking Crown wardship of two children for the purpose of adoption.

The mother sought the return of the children subject to society supervision, while the father was noted in default.

The court found that the mother's ongoing struggle with illicit substance abuse and her inability to maintain sustained abstinence posed a significant risk to the children, particularly given one child's developmental delays.

The court also noted concerns regarding ongoing contact with the abusive father.

The children were made Crown wards for the purpose of adoption, with the mother granted access at the society's discretion and the father denied access.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the non-resident plaintiff in a slip and fall action.

The court found that the defendants' cost estimates were excessive and projected partial indemnity costs at under $10,000.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding that the plaintiff had sufficient assets in Missouri, a reciprocating jurisdiction where an Ontario costs award could be enforced, to satisfy any potential costs order.

Following a successful motion to change a final order regarding child support, the moving party sought costs of $14,188.62 on a partial indemnity scale.

The responding party argued for a reduced quantum of $4,000, citing her inability to pay and alleging unreasonable behaviour by the moving party.

The court found that the moving party was substantially successful and had behaved reasonably throughout the litigation.

Conversely, the court found the responding party behaved unreasonably by failing to make concessions despite clear evidence of a material change in circumstances and by involving the children in the litigation.

The court held that ability to pay is not a complete defence to a costs award and ordered the responding party to pay the full requested amount of $14,188.62.

The accused, charged with armed robbery, brought a Charter application seeking to exclude a statement made to police, alleging breaches of his s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights.

The court found no s. 10(a) breach, as the accused knew the date and place of the robbery.

A s. 10(b) breach occurred when police questioned the accused at the roadside and seized his clothing before he could consult duty counsel.

However, the delay in facilitating access to counsel during the booking process was reasonable.

Under s. 24(2), the roadside statements and clothing were excluded, but the main interview statement was admitted as it was voluntary and followed a 'fresh start' caution.

The plaintiff landlord sued the defendant corporate tenant and its principal as indemnifier for unpaid rent and future rental losses after the tenant abandoned the commercial premises.

The tenant argued there was an informal understanding to delay enforcement while a new tenant was found, and that assigning the liquor license released the indemnifier.

The court found no enforceable agreement to release the indemnifier or delay enforcement.

The landlord reasonably mitigated its damages by re-letting the premises.

Judgment was granted for the landlord for arrears and future rental losses, less the security deposit.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a status hearing to set a litigation timetable for actions commenced over six years prior regarding failed investments.

The responding defendants sought to dismiss the actions for delay under Rule 48.14.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide an acceptable explanation for a three-year period of delay and that the defendants would suffer non-compensable prejudice due to fading memories and lost documents.

The actions were dismissed for delay.

The defendant insurers brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate and individual plaintiffs following a dispute over insurance coverage for a flooded restaurant.

The court dismissed the motion against the individual plaintiff, finding no evidence of his assets and that his claim was not vexatious.

The court also declined to order security for costs against the corporate plaintiff, despite its lack of assets, because the plaintiff alleged its impecuniosity was caused by the defendants' failure to timely pay business interruption insurance proceeds.

The parties settled an eight-year litigation regarding custom-built moulds.

Following the settlement, the defendants brought a motion for contempt alleging the plaintiff violated interlocutory orders by improperly storing two moulds outdoors, causing them to deteriorate.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the contempt motion.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding the underlying orders did not mandate any specific storage method and the contempt motion was a frivolous and vexatious attempt to re-litigate the settled action.

The parties brought competing motions to change a final order regarding custody and access of two children following the mother's relocation to Garden River.

The grandparents sought defined access, a police enforcement clause, access to official records, and an assessment of the children.

The mother and father consented to changing the father's access from supervised to unsupervised.

The court granted the grandparents defined monthly and holiday access with a police enforcement clause due to the high conflict between the parties, but dismissed their requests for official records and an assessment.

The father was granted unsupervised access on reasonable terms to be agreed upon with the mother.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment on a defaulted mortgage over the defendants' property in Tweed, Ontario.

The self-represented defendants argued the motion should have been brought in Belleville, but the court allowed it to proceed in Ottawa.

The court found no genuine issue regarding the default and granted summary judgment for the principal amount of $194,253.85, with a reference ordered to determine the exact final amount including interest and costs.

Judgment for possession was also granted but stayed for 30 days.

The respondent father brought a motion regarding retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses for an adult child with mental health challenges.

The applicant mother was largely successful on the motion, as the father conceded the child remained a child of the marriage and the mother received retroactive section 7 expenses.

Both parties sought costs.

The court found the mother's legal fees were excessive due to changing counsel, but awarded her $2,000 in costs payable by the father, noting her reasonable offer to settle.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff's action for a trip and fall on a sidewalk was barred due to insufficient notice under s. 44(10) of the Municipal Act.

The plaintiff had emailed the municipality eight days after the fall, and her roommate provided additional location details the next day.

The court found the notice was sufficient, as it allowed the municipality's adjuster to identify the area and take photographs.

The court also found no prejudice to the municipality and dismissed the motion for summary judgment, ordering the municipality to pay $2,000 in costs.

The self-represented plaintiffs by counterclaim brought a summary judgment motion against the defendants by counterclaim, which was withdrawn mid-argument after the husband admitted he lacked his wife's authority to proceed.

The defendants by counterclaim sought costs and directions to prevent further steps until outstanding costs were paid.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs against the husband for unreasonable conduct, including collateral attacks on previous judgments and breaching the implicit warranty of authority.

The court also issued directions prohibiting the plaintiffs by counterclaim from taking further steps without leave or until costs were paid, and barred the husband from representing his wife.

The applicant father brought a motion for access to his two children, whom he had not seen for nearly a year and a half due to a no-contact order following criminal convictions for assaulting and threatening them.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to appoint the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) and dismiss the access motion pending the OCL's recommendations.

The court ordered that the OCL be requested to ascertain the children's views and preferences, with a private psychotherapist to be engaged if the OCL declined.

The no-contact order was modified to accommodate the involvement of the OCL or the therapist.

Costs were reserved.

Following a 12-day family law trial regarding custody, access, and support, the parties could not agree on costs.

The mother sought costs of over $130,000, arguing she was the successful party and had made reasonable offers to settle.

The self-represented father argued for each party to bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found the mother was the more successful party and that her offers to settle were reasonable and better than the trial outcome on several key issues.

The court also noted the father's lack of preparation unnecessarily extended the trial.

The court fixed costs at $60,000 payable by the father to the mother.

The wife sought costs of $48,221.92 following successful motions primarily regarding support, interim disbursements, and disclosure.

The husband opposed the amount but did not provide a comparative bill of costs.

The court found that the husband engaged in bad faith through a pattern of deceptive disclosure and non-disclosure regarding his financial circumstances.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the wife $35,000 in costs on a full recovery basis for the support issue, with $25,000 enforceable as a support order.

The accused was convicted of two separate murders and faced a potential order under s. 745.51 of the Criminal Code that his parole ineligibility periods be served consecutively, totaling 41 years.

The accused challenged the constitutional validity of s. 745.51, arguing it violated ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter by permitting life-long sentences without hope of release.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the discretionary power to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods for multiple murders does not require or permit grossly disproportionate sentences.

The court also noted that the royal prerogative of mercy provides a realistic hope of eventual release.

The United States of America sought the extradition of the respondent to face charges of conspiracy to possess and distribute marijuana and MDMA.

The Attorney General of Canada applied for an order committing the respondent into custody to await the Minister's decision on surrender.

The court found that the respondent was the person sought and that the Record of the Case contained sufficient admissible evidence of conduct that, had it occurred in Canada, would justify committal for trial on the corresponding Canadian offence of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The committal order was granted.

The applicant, convicted of possessing child pornography, applied for bail pending appeal.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the appeal was frivolous.

The applicant argued that the trial judge erred in applying the W.D. test, failed to consider key evidence, and failed to consider whether guilt was the only logical conclusion in a circumstantial case.

The court rejected all three arguments, concluding that the trial judge properly assessed credibility, considered the relevant evidence, and correctly applied the burden of proof.