SCJ 2017

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.

The offender pleaded guilty to production of cannabis marijuana after police discovered a grow operation in his home.

The Crown sought 12 to 18 months in custody and a 20% forfeiture of the offender's real property, while the self-represented offender sought 9 months and a 5% forfeiture.

The court sentenced the offender to 12 months in custody (reduced to 11 months for pre-sentence custody) and ordered a 10% forfeiture of his ownership interest in the property, balancing his prior related criminal record with his guilty plea and significant medical issues.

The offender was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of second-degree murder following a violent rampage against three women.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, emphasizing denunciation and retribution given the horrific and cold-blooded nature of the crimes.

The court ordered a 20-year period of parole ineligibility for the second-degree murder and directed that the periods of parole ineligibility for all three murders be served consecutively, resulting in a total period of 70 years without parole eligibility.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial subject to a publication ban, the court convicted the accused of sexual offences against one child complainant and online communication offences involving another child complainant.

The court declined to use the online-messaging evidence as similar fact evidence on the first set of counts because of tainting concerns, but accepted the younger complainant's evidence as credible and reliable under the W.D. framework.

On the internet-related counts, the court found identity proved beyond a reasonable doubt on circumstantial evidence, rejecting the alternate-suspect theory and applying Villaroman.

The completed offence of making child pornography was not made out because the images had been pre-existing, but the accused was convicted of attempt under the Ancio framework.

The accused was acquitted on one recognizance breach count but convicted on the remaining substantive and derivative breach counts.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for sole custody and a graduated access schedule for her two children, who reside with her in Ontario.

The respondent father, residing in Italy, failed to exercise access for 19 months and initiated criminal abduction proceedings against the mother in Italy.

The court found that the father was validly served in Italy by a private process server under Article 10(c) of the Hague Convention on Service Abroad.

The court granted default judgment, awarding sole custody to the mother and ordering a graduated access schedule for the father in Ontario, finding it in the children's best interests.

In this criminal proceeding, the court issued an addendum to an earlier hearsay ruling concerning statements made by two child witnesses in a daycare sexual abuse prosecution.

Applying the principled exception to the hearsay rule, the court identified which portions of each witness's later statements added materially to earlier statements and were therefore admissible for their truth, while confirming that overlapping portions were admissible only as circumstantial narrative relevant to reliability.

The addendum was to be read together with the earlier ruling on hearsay and a separate ruling on count-to-count similar fact evidence.

The respondent father brought a motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, alleging the applicant mother breached various custody and access orders and seeking an order for reunification therapy with their 17-year-old son.

The mother brought a cross-motion to dismiss.

The court applied the three-part test for relief under Rule 1(8) and found no breach by the mother on a balance of probabilities.

The court further held that even if a breach had occurred, it would not order reunification therapy given the child's age, his resistance to the process, and the risk of negatively impacting his relationship with the father.

The father's motion was dismissed.

The applicant and the Director of the Family Responsibility Office brought motions to determine the distribution of the remaining proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent owed significant child support arrears, while a non-party brother held a default judgment against the respondent, and the CRA held liens for tax arrears.

The court held that under the Creditors' Relief Act, the support arrears had priority over the non-party's civil judgment, but not over the CRA's liens for debts owed to the Crown.

The court ordered the CRA liens to be paid first, followed by the support arrears.

The applicant was awarded costs of $10,170 against the respondent.

During pre-trial motions for a first-degree murder trial, the court addressed the accused's refusal to participate, the role of amicus curiae, and the admissibility of a police statement.

The court expanded the role of amicus curiae beyond making legal submissions to ensure a fair trial, given the accused's complete non-participation.

The court also ruled that the accused's statement to police was voluntary.

Although the court found a technical breach of the accused's s. 10(b) Charter rights due to a five-hour delay in facilitating access to counsel, the statement was not excluded under s. 24(2) because the police acted in good faith and the accused ultimately exercised his right to counsel before giving the statement.

The applicants sought a declaration that their default judgment against the respondent survived his bankruptcy discharge under s. 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The judgment arose after the respondent's real estate lawyer mistakenly paid him sale proceeds that were supposed to be held in trust to discharge a mortgage.

The respondent misappropriated the funds, spent them on personal items, and later declared bankruptcy without listing the applicants as creditors.

The court granted the application, finding that the respondent acted in a fiduciary capacity regarding the mistakenly received trust funds and that his misappropriation meant the debt survived his bankruptcy.

In a divorce action, the maternal grandparents brought a motion to be added as parties to advance a claim for access, which was dismissed.

The court determined the costs of the dismissed motion.

Finding that the motion had no chance of success and the procedure pursued was inappropriate at a late stage, the court awarded the responding party full indemnity costs fixed at $7,000.

On a Crown application in a judge-alone criminal proceeding, the court admitted count-to-count similar fact evidence arising from allegations by two very young complainants who attended the accused's home daycare.

Applying the similar fact evidence framework, the court found substantial similarities in the surrounding circumstances and conduct, including the accused's role as daycare provider, the complainants' ages, the isolation of each child during nap, quiet, or movie time, and the sexualized conduct directed at each child.

The court rejected the defence contention that possible collusion undermined admissibility, finding no evidence of communication capable of supporting collusion and relying on the chronology of disclosure.

The probative value, particularly on reliability and credibility, outweighed the risk of prejudice.

The applicant brought a certiorari application to quash his committal for trial on charges of an indecent act and sexual assault.

He argued the preliminary inquiry judge lost jurisdiction by failing to recognize an absence of evidence regarding subjective intent for the indecent act, and by improperly relying on a video statement and insufficient identification evidence for the sexual assault.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding no jurisdictional error.

The court held there was sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact could infer intent, and that the preliminary inquiry judge's decision on the adoption of the video statement was an evidentiary ruling not subject to judicial review.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend a second independent medical examination.

The plaintiff had surreptitiously recorded a previous examination by the defendant's expert, which the defendant argued compromised the expert's evidence.

The court granted the motion, finding the surreptitious recording improper and that fairness required a second examination.

The court also denied the plaintiff's request to record the new examination, noting there is no right to record defence medical examinations without leave.

The Crown brought an application during a trial for sexual offences to admit evidence of the accused's subsequent discreditable conduct as similar fact evidence.

The accused operated a home daycare where the offences allegedly occurred against two young children.

Three years later, neighbours observed the accused masturbating naked in his living room window.

The court applied the four-part test for discreditable conduct and found the evidence admissible regarding one complainant due to striking similarities in the location and nature of the act.

The application was dismissed regarding the second complainant as the conduct lacked sufficient similarity.

Following a trial where the respondent successfully defended the validity of the parties' marriage contract, the respondent sought costs of $55,371.53 on a full recovery basis due to an unaccepted offer to settle.

The applicant argued financial hardship.

The court found the respondent was entitled to full recovery costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules but exercised its discretion to fix costs at a fair and reasonable amount of $40,000, payable from the applicant's share of joint property proceeds.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant to answer questions refused during an examination for discovery in an action for damages caused by a leaking oil tank.

The plaintiffs sought information about other customer complaints and claims regarding corroded steel tanks.

The court found that the defendant's previous answers were evasive and ordered the defendant to provide a detailed list of all customer complaints or claims about water build-up or leaks between 2002 and 2011.

The court also ordered the production of reports to the TSSA and advice received from insurers regarding risk mitigation, while upholding privilege over reports made to insurers.