SCJ 2018

The offender pleaded guilty to the second-degree murder of his wife, whom he stabbed while she was in bed.

The court considered the offender's history of domestic violence against the victim, his mental health issues, and his guilty plea.

Applying the criteria under section 745.4 of the Criminal Code, the court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with a parole ineligibility period of 15 years.

The applicant, a dissident member of a not-for-profit corporation, sought access to the corporation's membership list, including electronic addresses, to requisition a meeting.

The corporation had withheld email addresses, citing privacy concerns.

The court found the corporation's refusal was intended to frustrate the dissident members and ordered the corporation to provide the electronic list, including email addresses.

The court also awarded $20,000 in costs to the applicant, noting that the corporation should not use its resources to place roadblocks in the way of corporate democracy.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after stabbing the victim multiple times with a kitchen knife.

At the time of the offence, the accused was on parole serving a life sentence for second-degree murder.

The court considered the accused's schizophrenia as a mitigating factor, but emphasized the need for protection of the public and general deterrence given the brutal and unprovoked nature of the attack on a vulnerable victim.

The accused was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment, to be served concurrently with his existing life sentence.

The applicant father brought a motion for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, seeking to remain in the home with the parties' special needs daughters.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that an immediate sale would cause undue disruption to the children's educational and daily routines.

The court ordered that the home not be listed for sale until at least the end of the current academic year to serve the best interests of the children.

The plaintiff brought a motion to find the defendant in contempt of court for violating freezing orders issued following a trial that found the defendant liable for a $7.3 million fraud.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had actual knowledge of the clear and unequivocal orders, yet intentionally failed to disclose his worldwide assets and actively dissipated hundreds of thousands of dollars to offshore accounts and third parties.

The defendant was found guilty of civil contempt and sentenced to 50 days of incarceration, with a subsequent hearing scheduled to determine if he could purge his contempt and mitigate his final sentence.

The applicant brought a motion to change parenting time, which resulted in the children residing primarily with him.

In these supplementary reasons, the court determined whether the respondent's parenting time met the 40% threshold under section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines to justify a set-off of child support.

The court applied an hourly calculation and found the respondent's time fell short of the required 3,504 hours per year.

Consequently, the respondent was ordered to pay full table child support.

The applicant mother was entirely successful on her motion to change the children's primary residence, establish parenting time, and obtain child support.

She sought costs for the motion.

The court found that the applicant's offer to settle was more favourable to the respondent than the final order, entitling her to full recovery costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

After reducing some hours that pertained to the overall application rather than the motion, the court awarded the applicant costs of $11,492.38.

The applicants sought a declaration that the respondent breached a Letter Agreement and had no valid license to market and sell the applicants' fish-rearing technology.

The court found that neither party had breached the agreement, as time of the essence had been suspended and not properly reinstated.

The parties had mutually agreed to terminate the agreement, triggering the respondent's right to a refund or a license.

The court held that the respondent validly exercised its right to acquire the license, which was certain and enforceable.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent brought a motion to change child support and arrears.

The applicant was the successful party on the motion, as the court fixed arrears at $25,082, which was closer to her position than the respondent's.

The applicant sought costs of $11,098.02 based on her counsel's usual rate, but the court limited recovery to the actual rate charged.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $3,815.35, noting the respondent's failure to make an offer to settle.

The plaintiff law firm sued its former client for unpaid legal fees.

Shortly after being served, the client granted a mortgage on her property to her former brother-in-law.

The plaintiff sought leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) alleging a fraudulent conveyance.

The Master denied the CPL, finding insufficient evidence of fraudulent intent.

On appeal, the Superior Court found the Master erred in law by applying a higher standard of proof to the second part of the test for a CPL and usurping the function of a trial judge.

The appeal was allowed and the CPL was granted.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an order compelling the respondent, who resides in Australia, to undergo DNA paternity testing regarding her 17-year-old child.

The respondent opposed, citing the applicant's delay in bringing the application and his privacy rights.

The court held that while it cannot compel the respondent to undergo testing, it has jurisdiction to grant leave to obtain a DNA test and draw adverse inferences if he refuses.

The court granted leave, finding that DNA testing provides the best evidence of paternity and that delay or privacy concerns do not override the need for this evidence.

The accused pleaded guilty to theft of electricity under $5,000, admitting to stealing $4,999 worth of hydro by occasionally disconnecting the meter at his business.

The Crown sought to prove the theft exceeded $5,000 by relying on circumstantial evidence of average historical use compared to actual billings.

The court found that the variables involved in calculating the exact amount stolen were too numerous to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court accepted the guilty plea for theft under $5,000.

The defendants brought a motion arguing that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction over the litigation.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants carried on business in Ontario and that the contract for the sale of a tractor was formed in Ontario.

The court applied the real and substantial connection test and found that the defendants' activities did not amount to carrying on business in Ontario.

Furthermore, the court determined that the contract was formed in Quebec during a telephone conversation.

Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to establish a geographic connection to Ontario, and the defendants' motion was granted.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale following a judgment in their favour regarding a real estate transaction.

They relied on three Rule 49 offers to settle.

The court found that the offers did not meet the requirements of Rule 49.10 because the judgment obtained was not more favourable than the first offer, and the offers contained uncertain terms requiring the future negotiation of a full and final release.

The court awarded the plaintiffs costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $31,843.09, noting that the defendant's conduct, while causing delay, was not egregious enough to warrant substantial indemnity costs.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action by summary judgment, the successful defendants sought costs of $41,258.00 on a substantial indemnity scale.

The self-represented plaintiff opposed the costs award, raising numerous allegations of improper conduct by defence counsel and relying on her own unaccepted settlement offer.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments and her request for an assessment, but also declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no egregious misconduct by the plaintiff.

Applying the Rule 57.01 factors and considering the defendants' failure to participate in mandatory mediation, the court fixed costs at $21,024.00.

This case involved a continuation of a confirmation hearing under the Divorce Act regarding a New Brunswick provisional order to resume spousal support for the respondent due to post-traumatic stress disorder.

The applicant, the former husband, challenged the confirmation.

The court found that the complex medical expert evidence concerning the respondent's PTSD and its causation could not be adequately assessed in a bifurcated hearing, thus failing to meet the threshold requirements of section 18(2) of the Divorce Act.

Consequently, the provisional order was not confirmed, but the respondent retained the right to bring a new application to vary without resorting to section 18.

The defendant Royal Bank of Canada moved for summary judgment to dismiss a claim by the plaintiff Foodinvest Limited.

Foodinvest sought to recover wire payments made to fraudulent Polish accounts for meat products that were never delivered.

Foodinvest alleged the Bank was negligent in not warning of the fraud or investigating the accounts.

The Bank argued its liability was limited by contract to negligence, and no negligence occurred, nor was there a duty to investigate foreign accounts or warn the customer, especially given FINTRAC obligations to not 'tip off' suspicious clients.

The court found the Master Client Agreement binding, that the Bank had no duty to warn or investigate external fraud, and that the plaintiff failed to provide expert evidence of a breach of banking standard of care.

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

This endorsement from a case conference addresses the management of two intertwined proceedings: a family law application (divorce, spousal support, equalization, trust claims) and a guardianship proceeding.

The court prioritized the family law application, scheduling a combined settlement and trial management conference.

It also addressed disclosure issues, compliance with previous orders (costs, property listing), and clarified the procedural nature of prior decisions.

The court declined to set a hearing date for the guardianship application at this time.

The applicants, who lost $150 million investing in Concordia International Corp., applied for a Norwich Order against the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC).

They sought trading data and client identities to identify short-sellers they believed conspired to illegally manipulate Concordia's share price.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the applicants had a bona fide potential claim for civil conspiracy, they failed to satisfy the other criteria for a Norwich Order.

Specifically, IIROC's role as a regulator did not constitute being 'mixed up' in the wrongdoing, the applicants already had sufficient information to pursue claims, and balancing IIROC's regulatory duties and privacy interests against the applicants' interests favoured denying the order.

The court determined costs for motions brought by the defendants and a cross-motion by the plaintiffs.

The defendants sought orders compelling the plaintiff Mr. Smith to attend medical examinations and discovery, while the plaintiffs sought orders compelling the defendants to provide documents and satisfy undertakings.

The court found the defendants largely successful on the argued issues and awarded them net costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $9,000.

The plaintiffs' request to delay payment due to impecuniosity was denied due to lack of substantiation and the need to incentivize timely litigation conduct.