SCJ 2019

The applicant tenant brought an application for a declaration that the respondent landlord unlawfully terminated its commercial lease for a parking lot.

The landlord had posted a Notice of Termination alleging the tenant abandoned the premises.

The court found that the landlord's notice did not comply with s. 19(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act because it failed to provide the tenant with a reasonable opportunity to remedy the alleged breach or make compensation.

Consequently, the court declared the termination of the lease invalid.

A young offender was convicted of manslaughter for his role as a lookout during a fatal shooting in a fast food restaurant washroom.

The Crown sought the maximum three-year sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, while the defence sought a sentence of time served with enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court denied enhanced credit, finding no exceptional circumstances, and sentenced the offender to two years and nine months in closed custody, less time served, followed by two years of probation.

The accused, charged with second degree murder, challenged the validity of a telewarrant to search his home and the admissibility of his statement to police.

The court found the Information to Obtain contained sufficient reliable evidence for the issuing justice to grant the warrant.

The court also held that the accused's statement was voluntary, as he possessed an operating mind despite his references to demons and curses, and that his rights to silence and counsel under ss. 7 and 10(b) of the Charter were not breached.

Both applications to exclude evidence were dismissed.

Following a jury verdict finding the accused guilty of sexual interference and sexual assault against his stepdaughter, the defence requested a bifurcated hearing to determine the proven facts for sentencing.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Ferguson to determine the factual implications of the ambiguous jury verdict.

Due to significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's evidence regarding hundreds of alleged incidents, the court found only the minimum consistent facts proven.

The court concluded that only one incident of touching the complainant's buttocks was proven beyond a reasonable doubt for the purpose of sentencing.

The plaintiff, a scaffolding supplier, sued the defendant, a forest products manufacturer, for breach of contract after the defendant terminated its services.

The plaintiff claimed damages for unpaid demobilization costs and for scaffolding equipment that was allegedly contaminated and had to be scrapped.

The court found that there was no agreement for the defendant to pay demobilization costs, dismissing that portion of the claim.

However, the court found the defendant liable for the contaminated equipment, assessing damages based on 40 percent of the equipment being scrapped, and awarded the plaintiff $107,091.30.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, seeking $1,700 per month.

The respondent, who was paying $400 per month, argued that the current amount should be maintained.

The parties had been married for 26 years and were in significant debt, having made a consumer proposal.

The court considered the parties' incomes, debts, and the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $950 per month, finding it reasonable and just pending trial.

Following the successful defence of a contempt motion brought by the respondent, the applicant sought full indemnity costs of $8,296.52.

The court found that the respondent acted in bad faith by bringing six meritless contempt charges to perpetuate litigation and attack the applicant personally.

The court rejected the respondent's arguments regarding impecuniosity, noting her income of nearly $100,000.

The applicant was awarded costs of $6,800, with a slight reduction due to his delay in providing benefits information.

During jury selection for a drug trafficking trial, the defence brought three motions regarding the composition of the jury.

The defence sought to strike the predominantly white jury panel for lacking racial diversity, requested the use of the newly amended s. 633 stand-aside discretion to ensure gender balance, and asked to stand aside a nurse for alleged partiality.

The court dismissed all three requests, holding that random selection satisfies the representativeness requirement, that the stand-aside discretion should not be used to manipulate gender balance, and that there was no objective evidence of partiality regarding the nurse.

The offender pled guilty to possession of cocaine and possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered the extreme danger of fentanyl as an aggravating factor, balanced against the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, guilty pleas, and rehabilitation efforts.

The court determined an 18-month sentence was appropriate.

After applying 1.5:1 credit for 449 days of pre-sentence custody, which included frequent lockdowns due to staff shortages, the offender had served the equivalent of 22 months.

The offender was sentenced to one day in custody followed by two years of probation.

The applicant, the separated spouse of the deceased, brought a motion for production of documents, repayment of legal fees to the estate, and interim support in the context of a dependant's relief application.

The deceased had left his entire estate to his sister, the respondent.

The court ordered the respondent to produce the required documents and repay $9,999.91 to the estate, finding she was in a conflict of interest by using estate funds to defend the claim in her personal capacity.

The court also found the applicant met the test for interim support and awarded her a lump sum of $30,000.

The applicant, wanted for attempted murder, was arrested during a high-risk police takedown.

During the arrest, an officer broke the driver's side window with a shotgun, accidentally striking the applicant's head and causing lacerations.

The applicant brought an application under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging excessive force in violation of his ss. 7 and 12 rights, and sought a stay of proceedings.

The court dismissed the application, finding the officer's actions were objectively reasonable and proportionate given the applicant's non-compliance and the officer's belief that the applicant was reaching for a firearm.

The accused was arrested following a high-risk police takedown while driving a vehicle.

A search of the accused yielded drugs and ammunition, and a subsequent search of the vehicle's trunk revealed a loaded handgun alongside the accused's personal belongings.

The defence argued that police planted the personal items in the trunk to link the accused to the firearm.

The court rejected the defence's evidence, applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, and found the accused guilty of all 16 firearms, drugs, and breach of probation charges.

The plaintiff was injured after slipping on ice on a municipal sidewalk after exiting a bus.

She sued the City of Toronto and the TTC, and later added the City's winter maintenance contractor, Pave-Tar.

Pave-Tar and the TTC brought motions for partial summary judgment to dismiss the claims against them.

Pave-Tar argued the claim against it was statute-barred, while the TTC argued it owed no duty of care.

The court dismissed both motions, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the limitation period and concluding that partial summary judgment was inappropriate due to the intertwined facts and risk of inconsistent findings at trial.

The applicant's application for injunctive relief and reinstatement as a priest was dismissed.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs of $104,706.19, alleging the applicant engaged in sanctionable conduct and pursued fruitless litigation against improper parties.

The court rejected the claim for substantial indemnity costs, finding the conduct did not warrant sanction.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01(1) and the principle of fixing a fair and reasonable amount, the court awarded the respondents costs fixed at $50,000 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

In this criminal trial ruling on a blended voir dire, the Crown sought to admit evidence from other former students and cross-count evidence as similar fact evidence in relation to allegations of sexualized conduct by a teacher toward adolescent male students.

Applying the governing similar fact framework, the court held that the proposed evidence invited impermissible propensity reasoning, raised substantial prejudice concerns, and risked derailing the trial into a character inquiry.

The court further found an air of reality to collusion or innocent taint among several witnesses and held the Crown failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the evidence was untainted.

The proposed similar fact evidence and count-to-count evidence were excluded, although certain direct evidence relating to the charged events remained admissible.

The applicant sought to confirm a provisional order from the Northwest Territories that would terminate child support for his two younger children.

The respondent mother opposed the termination, providing evidence at the confirmation hearing that both children were pursuing post-secondary education and remained dependent.

The court found the children were still children of the marriage and refused to confirm the portions of the provisional order that terminated their support, instead ordering continued monthly child support.

The accused brought a Garofoli application challenging the validity of a search warrant issued for several cellular telephones seized from his hotel room.

The accused argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) was rife with errors and recklessly misled the issuing justice regarding his identification as a theft suspect.

The court found that while the ITO contained drafting deficiencies and inaccuracies, they were the result of inexperience rather than an intention to mislead.

After excising the inaccurate portions and evidence obtained unconstitutionally, the court concluded the remaining evidence of drugs, scales, and a prohibited weapon in plain view provided sufficient reasonable and probable grounds to support the warrant.

The application was dismissed.

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant sought sole custody, child and spousal support, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent did not appear.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, imputed the respondent's income based on a past tax assessment, and ordered child and spousal support.

The court declined to order exclusive possession of the matrimonial home but ordered its sale, dispensing with the respondent's consent.

The applicant's request for an unequal division of net family property was dismissed due to insufficient evidence, with leave to file further evidence.

The plaintiff's motion to add Ken Rubin as a defendant in a defamation action based on his freedom of information requests was previously dismissed.

In this costs decision, the Master applied the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act by analogy.

Finding no reason to deviate from the statutory presumption of full indemnity costs under s. 137.1(7), the Master awarded the successful proposed defendant his requested costs of $15,000.

The third party brought a motion for default judgment on its counterclaim against the defendants, while the defendants brought a motion declaring the counterclaim improper.

The parties resolved the substantive issues on consent but could not agree on costs.

The court reviewed the conduct of both parties, noting the third party's premature noting in default and the defendants' failure to retain counsel promptly.

The court concluded that both parties bore some responsibility for the costs incurred and ordered that each party bear their own costs.