SCJ 2017

The applicant brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to maintain his rent-geared-to-income subsidy pending the hearing of his application for judicial review.

The respondent municipality had terminated the subsidy because the applicant failed to report changes in his income.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as his fears of eviction were speculative and financial losses could be compensated.

The balance of convenience favoured the municipality, which had a long waiting list for subsidized housing.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant appealed a master's decision dismissing its motion to transfer a Simplified Procedure action to the Small Claims Court.

The master had declined the transfer because the action was already scheduled for a summary trial in the Superior Court, and a transfer would cause prejudicial delay.

The Superior Court of Justice found no error in principle or palpable and overriding error in the master's exercise of discretion.

The appeal was dismissed, and fresh evidence admitted on consent did not alter the outcome.

The accused brought a defence application to sever counts on a multi-complainant indictment involving historical sexual allegations, a partner assault allegation, and more recent sexual allegations.

Applying the severance factors, the court held the applicant had established on a balance of probabilities that the interests of justice warranted severance.

The court found the factual nexus between the counts was not compelling at this stage, the risk of prejudice and cross-pollination on credibility assessments favoured severance, and similar fact admissibility was not sufficiently clear to outweigh those concerns.

The counts involving the historical allegations were severed from the counts involving the more recent allegations.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose following a violent altercation in a nightclub parking lot.

The incident began over a minor vehicle collision and escalated when the complainant armed himself with a box cutter and the accused retrieved a switchblade.

The court found that the accused acted in self-defence during the initial confrontations but committed a simple assault when he re-engaged the complainant after the threat had subsided.

The accused was acquitted of the weapons charges and aggravated assault, but convicted of the lesser included offence of simple assault.

The child brought a motion to vacate a temporary order placing him in a secure treatment program.

The applicant conceded she did not meet the statutory definition of a parent, resulting in the application being dismissed for lack of standing.

The court further noted that even if standing existed, the temporary order would be vacated because the strict criteria for secure treatment, including evidence of serious bodily harm and the unavailability of less restrictive treatment methods, were not met.

The accused was convicted of two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm after speeding through a red light and colliding with two vehicles, injuring both drivers.

The court considered the accused's difficult upbringing, lengthy criminal record, and current 64-month sentence for unrelated offences.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a 12-month custodial sentence to run concurrently with his existing sentence, along with a 12-month driving prohibition.

The accused, charged with the first-degree murder of his spouse, applied for judicial interim release.

The court found that the accused met his burden on the primary and secondary grounds, as he was not a flight risk and his proposed release plan mitigated safety and interference concerns.

However, the court denied bail on the tertiary ground.

Given the brutal nature of the domestic homicide, the very strong circumstantial case for the Crown, and the gravity of the offence, the court concluded that releasing the accused would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The defendant was wholly successful on a summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiff's action regarding a marine insurance claim.

The court previously awarded costs to the defendant on a partial indemnity scale and requested submissions on quantum.

After considering the complexity of the factual and legal issues, the volume of document production, and the amount claimed, the court fixed the defendant's costs at $50,848.75 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

The plaintiffs, beneficial owners of a property, sought a declaration of ownership and a vesting order after the defendant bare trustee sold the property without their consent.

The trustee, who was subject to personal executions, signed a false affidavit stating he was not the execution debtor to complete the sale.

The court found the trustee was a 'fraudulent person' under the Land Titles Act and the transfer was a 'fraudulent instrument'.

The purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser without notice, as suspicious circumstances put him on inquiry.

The court declared the transfer void and ordered the title rectified to reflect the beneficial ownership interests.

The bankrupt, a 72-year-old self-employed businessman with significant tax debts, applied for a discharge from bankruptcy.

The discharge was opposed by the Canada Revenue Agency and the Trustee in Bankruptcy.

The court found that the bankrupt had engaged in unjustifiable extravagance and had structured his affairs through a family trust to artificially lower his income.

The court granted a conditional discharge, requiring the bankrupt to pay $100,000 to the Trustee for the benefit of his creditors.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to grant a stay of proceedings after finding that a police officer used excessive force by Tasering the accused in the back as he was walking away from a scuffle.

The Crown argued the trial judge applied the wrong standard of review, provided insufficient reasons, misapprehended expert evidence, and erred in granting a stay.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and that the use of the Taser in these circumstances offended society's sense of fair play and decency, justifying a stay of proceedings under the Babos framework.

Following a 7-day trial regarding a neighbourhood dispute, the successful defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim sought costs of $75,972.99 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that their Rule 49 offer to settle was not strictly beaten at trial, and the unsuccessful party's conduct was not so reprehensible as to warrant substantial indemnity costs.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality under Rule 57, the court fixed costs payable to the successful parties at $47,194.81.

The defendant developer moved to discharge a construction lien registered by the plaintiff contractor, arguing the lien was registered out of time because the parties had entered into five separate contracts rather than one global contract.

The plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting there was only one contract for the entire subdivision project.

Applying principles of contract interpretation, the court found the explicit provisions of the contractual materials clearly established five separate agreements.

Consequently, the plaintiff's lien was registered out of time and was invalid, particularly as it was registered against premises where no work or materials were supplied.

The defendant's motion to discharge the lien and release funds paid into court was granted.

The Crown and the two accused brought several pre-trial motions ahead of a re-trial for murder and aggravated assault arising from a shooting at a house party.

The court ruled on the admissibility of various pieces of evidence, including post-offence conduct, a photograph of the deceased, a lead fragment, ammunition, and black socks with gunshot residue.

The court also dismissed a Charter application challenging a search warrant, finding the accused lacked standing as he had abandoned the apartment.

Finally, the court denied the accused's request to sit at counsel table, ordering them to remain in separate prisoner's docks with leg belts due to significant security concerns and antagonistic defences.

The bankrupt appealed a Registrar's order requiring him to pay $61,000 as a condition of his discharge from bankruptcy, and moved to admit fresh medical evidence regarding his mental health during the period he defaulted on his consumer proposal.

The court dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding the treating psychiatrist's letters were not sufficiently credible or probative to affect the outcome.

The court upheld the Registrar's decision, concluding there was no error in principle in finding the bankrupt dissipated funds and failed to perform his proposal despite having the means to do so.

The applicants, owners of a restaurant offering shisha, sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the City of Ottawa from enforcing a bylaw prohibiting the use of water pipes in indoor public places, pending their Charter challenge.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm due to the corporate applicant's potential lack of standing for Charter damages.

However, the balance of convenience favoured the City, as the public interest in protecting health from second-hand smoke outweighed the applicants' financial losses and temporary limits on cultural traditions.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the City.

The accused, charged with multiple offences across three dates including uttering death threats, unlawful confinement, and weapons offences against his wife, applied to sever the charges into separate trials.

The court dismissed the application, finding a strong factual and legal nexus between the events, a risk of inconsistent verdicts given the complainant's recantation, and that evidence from each incident would likely be admissible in the others to provide context and establish post-offence conduct.

Following a mid-trial settlement of a protracted custody and access dispute, the applicant and respondent each sought costs of $15,000 against the other, and the applicant also sought costs against the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The court dismissed all claims for costs.

The court found that the applicant's unreasonable pursuit of primary residence for three years rebutted the presumption of costs in his favour, while the respondent acted unreasonably by proceeding to trial instead of settling based on her long-held position.

The court also declined to award costs against the OCL, finding no bad faith or patently unreasonable conduct that would justify such an exceptional order.

The plaintiff equipment rental company moved for summary judgment against the defendant developer for rental charges and damages related to equipment left on the defendant's site after the general contractor went bankrupt and abandoned the project.

The plaintiff advanced claims of unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and conversion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the defendant used or benefited from the equipment after the contractor abandoned the site, nor any evidence that the defendant caused damage to the equipment.

The plaintiff and defendant, adjoining landowners, disputed the existence and use of a right of way over a laneway between their properties.

The plaintiff sought to rectify the parcel register to show its right of way, while the defendant claimed the right of way had expired, been abandoned, or was restricted.

The court found that the plaintiff had a valid right of way that had not expired or been abandoned, and ordered the rectification of the title.

However, the court restricted the plaintiff's use of the right of way to pedestrian access only, finding that vehicular access was unsafe and not viable.

The plaintiff's claim for damages for lost rents and profits was dismissed for lack of proof.