SCJ 2019

The plaintiff son and defendant father were involved in a family business dispute over well drilling companies.

The son brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking to be appointed as a director and to have the corporate assets evaluated, while the father brought a cross-motion seeking to wind up the company.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the voluminous conflicting affidavit evidence and credibility issues required a full trial.

However, the court granted an interim order increasing the land rent paid by the corporation to the father based on an unchallenged appraisal.

The plaintiff employee was injured while engaging in horseplay on the defendant employer's premises.

The WSIB ruled he was not in the course of employment, precluding WSIA benefits but allowing a civil action.

At the opening of trial, the defendant brought a motion to restrict the plaintiff's claim to occupier's liability, arguing the WSIB ruling precluded claims based on the employment relationship.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the WSIB ruling did not negate the plaintiff's common-law right to claim damages for negligence against the defendant as his employer.

Following a civil jury trial for a motor vehicle accident, the judge considered whether the plaintiff's injuries met the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The plaintiff claimed the accident exacerbated his pre-existing severe osteoarthritis in his right shoulder.

The court found the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a permanent, serious impairment caused by the accident, noting his pre-existing condition, return to work, and lack of immediate injury complaints.

The plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary damages was dismissed.

In a family trial involving parenting, support, property, and related tort claims, the court addressed a prolonged online harassment and cyberbullying campaign by the applicant against the respondent, her family, and even court participants, including repeated publication of recordings and images of the children.

Applying the best interests framework under the Divorce Act, the Children's Law Reform Act, and the Rights of the Child Convention, the court granted the respondent sole custody, permitted the children to reside in England, imposed strict supervised-access conditions, and issued a permanent restraining order.

The court also imputed income due to egregious financial non-disclosure, ordered retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, security for support from sale proceeds, and equalization-related payments.

In the civil component, the court found intentional infliction of mental suffering and invasion of privacy, recognized the false light publicity tort, and awarded substantial compensatory and punitive damages.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application against the offender, who was convicted of two counts of counselling murder and one count of obstruction of justice.

The offender brought a Charter challenge arguing the dangerous offender regime violated his rights under ss. 7 and 12, which the court dismissed.

The court found the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation due to an intractable pattern of severe domestic violence and a high risk of violent recidivism.

Concluding that neither a conventional sentence nor a long-term supervision order would adequately protect the public, the court imposed an indeterminate sentence.

The appellant appealed her conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient, particularly regarding credibility findings in a Charter application.

The Charter application alleged arbitrary detention and sought exclusion of evidence, claiming the traffic stop was solely for a roadside sobriety test.

The trial judge dismissed the Charter application, finding the traffic stop lawful based on observed Highway Traffic Act infractions and that the breath demand complied with the Criminal Code.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, deferring to the trial judge's credibility findings and concluding that the reasons were sufficient, finding no basis to interfere with the rulings.

The applicant sought an interim injunction to prevent the Town of Caledon from enforcing a work order requiring the removal of 5,500 tonnes of illegal fill from his property, as well as an order of mandamus for document disclosure.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, noting the high hurdle for enjoining a public authority enforcing its by-laws in the public interest.

Finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the Town, the court dismissed the motion for injunctive relief and mandamus.

The appellant was convicted of refusing to provide a breath sample.

He appealed, arguing his s. 10(b) Charter rights were breached when police failed to make reasonable efforts to contact his counsel of choice and compelled him to provide a breath sample without clearly advising him of time limits or options to find other private counsel.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the police failed to adequately carry out their implementational duties under s. 10(b) by not checking the lawyer's website for an after-hours number and by not properly informing the appellant of his options.

The conviction was quashed and an acquittal entered.

Following the breakdown of their common law relationship, the parties sought to divide the net proceeds from the sale of their jointly owned home.

The applicant claimed an unequal division based on unjust enrichment for paying the mortgage, while the respondent's father claimed repayment for a $6,000 loan and the cost of home renovations he performed.

The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding the parties had agreed to share expenses according to their means.

The court ordered the $6,000 loan to be repaid from the joint proceeds but found the home renovations were a gift, rebutting the presumption of a resulting trust.

The net proceeds were divided with specific adjustments for initial contributions, closing costs, and legal fees.

The defendants in a nuisance action brought a motion for leave to bring a motion and for an order to inspect the plaintiffs' property under Rule 32 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The parties were involved in two separate actions regarding a dispute over encroaching earth and water.

The defendants had previously been ordered to seek leave before bringing further motions due to past intransigence.

The court granted leave, finding the defendants had not been frivolous or vexatious in recent years.

The court also granted the request for inspection, allowing the defendants' experts to visually inspect the plaintiffs' property, as it was necessary for the proper determination of the issues and would not cause prejudice.

Costs of $23,000 were awarded to the moving parties.

The applicant father sought a temporary order for alternate weekend access, Wednesday evening access, special Christmas access, and an order for the respondent mother to enroll their 12-year-old daughter in reconciliation counselling.

The child, whose views were confirmed by a Voice of the Child report, did not wish to see her father due to his past infidelity and involving her in a secret.

The mother was not opposed to access but advocated for a gradual re-introduction.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding it not in the child's best interest to force access against her wishes, especially on an interim basis, and awarded costs to the respondent.

The court fixed the costs of a motion where the defendant successfully opposed the registration of a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on its property.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $51,051.67, arguing it made a Rule 49 offer and the motion was complex.

The court found the Rule 49 offer invalid because it required unanimous acceptance by all moving parties and third-party consent.

The court also found the costs claimed completely unreasonable and excessive for a CPL motion, noting that counsel spent 222 hours on the matter.

The court fixed costs at $6,000, payable 75% by one group of plaintiffs and 25% by another.

The father applied for sole custody of the parties' four-year-old child.

Following separation, the parties initially shared parenting on an alternating weekly schedule.

However, the mother unilaterally terminated this schedule, relocated, and engaged in a pattern of alienating behaviour, including terminating the father's relationship with her older child to whom the father had stood in loco parentis.

The court found the mother lacked the ability to foster a positive relationship between the child and the father.

The father was granted sole custody, with the mother receiving specified access, and child support was ordered to commence after a grace period.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and primary residence of the parties' two children, while the respondent father sought joint custody and equal time-sharing.

The court found that the parties' high conflict and inability to communicate made joint custody unworkable.

The mother was granted sole decision-making authority, with the father retaining authority over dental care and specific sports.

The children were ordered to reside primarily with the mother during the school year, with equal time-sharing during summer and holidays.

The court also determined the parties' incomes for child support purposes, disallowing the mother's rental losses and adding back most of the father's business expenses, and ordered retroactive adjustments for child support, section 7 expenses, and post-separation family expenses.

The court considered an application under s. 24(2) of the Charter of Rights to exclude evidence (drugs and proceeds of crime) seized from an apartment.

In a prior decision, the police were found to have breached the accused's s. 8 Charter rights by entering and searching the apartment without reasonable and probable grounds.

Applying the R. v. Grant test, the court found the state conduct to be careless and serious, the impact on the accused's privacy interests in their home to be significant, and that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Consequently, the seized evidence was excluded from trial.

The applicant received a seven-month conditional sentence in 2013.

Subsequent retroactive amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act made her liable to deportation without a right of appeal due to the sentence length exceeding six months.

Unaware of her right to appeal the sentence until recently, she applied for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

The court applied the Menear factors and granted the extension, finding that the delay was adequately explained, the proposed appeal had merit based on unforeseen collateral immigration consequences, and denying the extension would be unjust.

The appellant father and respondent mother both brought motions to introduce fresh evidence in an appeal from an arbitrator's decision declining to order their children be vaccinated.

The court applied a relaxed Palmer test, given the case involved the best interests of children.

The court admitted the father's fresh expert evidence regarding vaccine safety and the mother's genetic variation, as well as evidence challenging the credibility of one of the mother's experts.

The court also admitted the mother's fresh evidence from the children's family doctor regarding their current health and the psychological impact of the litigation.

A temporary publication ban on the children's health information was made permanent.

The applicant, a convicted sex offender, brought an application for habeas corpus and Charter damages challenging the revocation of his day parole and the search of his vehicle at a halfway house.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the habeas corpus claims, finding that the parole system under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act provides a complete and expert process for review.

The court also held that the applicant's Charter claims for damages could not be determined on the limited evidentiary record of an application and converted those claims into an action, ordering the applicant to file a statement of claim.

The plaintiffs, promoters of a wind farm project, brought a motion to compel answers to questions and production of documents refused by the Crown during examinations for discovery.

The plaintiffs alleged that the Crown's refusal to issue a Renewable Energy Approval was due to bad faith political interference during the 2014 provincial election.

The Crown argued the questions were res judicata and the documents were not in its control or were protected by Cabinet privilege.

The Master granted the motion, finding the issues were not res judicata, the documents were relevant and within the Crown's control, and the public interest in disclosure outweighed any claim of Cabinet privilege.

The Landlord and Tenant Board requested an order dismissing the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff sought $30 million in damages against the Board, alleging misconduct, bias, and procedural unfairness during her eviction proceedings.

The court found the action was an attempt to relitigate issues already decided by the Board and the Divisional Court.

The action was dismissed as a collateral attack and an abuse of process.