SCJ 2019

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking sole custody and child support.

The parties settled the parenting issues, agreeing to a week-about shared parenting schedule.

The remaining issue was child support, specifically whether the respondent met the 40% threshold under section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court found that the time the children spent in school should be considered neutral, as both parents shared responsibility for the children during school hours.

Consequently, the respondent met the 40% threshold, and the applicant, having the higher income, was ordered to pay set-off child support and arrears.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the plaintiff's claim of negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

The plaintiff, a dentist, alleged he was misled during negotiations to exercise an option to purchase an interest in a dental practice.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to properly plead the necessary elements of negligent misrepresentation, including duty of care, detrimental reliance, and damages.

The court granted the motion to strike the negligent misrepresentation claim but granted the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim to cure the deficiencies.

The applicant father moved for summary judgment for sole custody of the parties' two children.

The respondent mother did not respond to the motion.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the mother had counselled one of the children to make false allegations of abuse against the father and had not exercised access in over a year.

The court granted the father sole custody and the mother supervised access, finding it in the children's best interests.

Costs were awarded to the father on a partial indemnity basis.

The accused faced 17 counts relating to alleged violence against his wife and two children between 2003 and 2015.

The court found the wife to be an unreliable witness and declined to convict on any counts based solely on her uncorroborated testimony.

However, the court found the two children to be credible and reliable witnesses.

Relying on the children's testimony, the court found the accused guilty of six counts of assault against his wife and children, and not guilty of the remaining eleven counts.

Following a decision on cross-applications regarding the severance of a joint tenancy and a life interest in a property, the court determined the costs.

The court found divided success between the parties.

Because the litigation was necessitated by the testator's failure to unambiguously sever the joint tenancy during his lifetime, the court ordered the Estate to pay the partial indemnity costs of both the Salga applicants and Ms. Marley, as well as the full indemnity costs of the Estate Trustee.

The Salga applicants were ordered to pay Ms. Marley's substantial indemnity costs for an unnecessary consolidation motion.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final order to terminate his child support obligations for his 23-year-old daughter, retroactively to May 2015.

The respondent mother, who lived in Toronto (more than 150 km from the Ottawa court), failed to file responding materials despite multiple extensions.

The father sought to proceed to an uncontested trial under Rule 10(5) of the Family Law Rules.

The court held that a provisional order must issue pursuant to s. 44 of the Family Law Act, given the mother's stated inability to attend court in Ottawa and a prior order directing a provisional process.

The court provisionally terminated child support retroactively to June 1, 2015, and temporarily suspended the father's ongoing support obligations pending a confirmation hearing in Toronto.

Following a partial summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff, the court determined the reserved costs of the motion.

The plaintiff sought full indemnity costs based on a contractual indemnity provision.

The court affirmed its discretion to ensure costs are fair and reasonable despite the contractual term.

The court awarded solicitor and client costs but deducted $5,000 due to the plaintiff's delay in correcting misnamed defendants, fixing total costs at $39,803.18.

The applicant municipality sought to have the self-represented respondent declared a vexatious litigant under s. 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and to dismiss his action under Rule 2.1.01.

The respondent had sued the municipality and police for malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, and false arrest following criminal charges against him.

The court declined to declare the respondent a vexatious litigant but struck out his malicious prosecution claims because the underlying criminal charges had not resolved in his favour.

The court also struck numerous scandalous and irrelevant paragraphs from the statement of claim, while allowing the misfeasance and false arrest claims to proceed under strict case management.

The applicant mortgagee sought to vacate three instruments, including certificates of pending litigation, registered by the respondent against the mortgaged property.

The mortgagee had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale under its power of sale, and the purchaser requisitioned the removal of the instruments.

The court held that the application was premature, as section 35 of the Mortgages Act extinguishes subsequent encumbrances upon the completion of the sale by statutory declaration, making a court order unnecessary at this stage.

The application was adjourned until after the sale closes.

The father applied for sole custody, child support, and an order regarding the mother's access rights.

The mother had a history of child abuse and involvement with the Children's Aid Society, and had not seen the children in over two years following a public altercation with the father.

The court granted sole custody to the father, finding it in the children's best interests.

The court ordered a graduated access schedule for the mother, beginning with supervised visits.

Additionally, the court imputed an annual income of $26,000 to the mother, who was unemployed by choice, and ordered her to pay $391 per month in child support.

The defendant appealed a consent order authorizing the court-supervised sale of a property owned by his sister.

Following the consent order, the mortgages on the property went into default, and the first mortgagee exercised its power of sale, rendering the court-supervised sale moot.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding it was moot, futile, and that the defendant failed to seek or establish grounds for leave to appeal a consent order under section 133(a) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The accused, charged with possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking, challenged the validity of search warrants executed at their residences under section 8 of the Charter.

The warrants were based heavily on information from two confidential informants, which was substantially redacted in the Information to Obtain (ITO) to protect informer privilege.

Applying the Garofoli Step 6 procedure and the Debot inquiries, the court found that the redacted ITO, even with Crown summaries, lacked sufficient reliable and compelling evidence to establish reasonable and probable grounds.

The police surveillance failed to meaningfully corroborate the informants' tips regarding the presence of drugs at the target address.

Consequently, the court ruled the warrants invalid and the subsequent searches and arrests unlawful.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of manslaughter for his participation in a group attack that resulted in the victim's death by blunt force trauma.

The sentencing judge determined the facts of the offence, finding that the offender used a branch as a weapon and participated in beating the defenceless victim.

After weighing aggravating factors, including the brutal nature of the attack, against mitigating factors such as the offender's supportive family and lack of premeditation, the court imposed a sentence of 6.5 years.

The offender received 399 days of credit for pre-sentence custody, lockdown conditions, and strict bail conditions, leaving a remaining sentence of 5 years and 149 days.

During a personal injury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiffs sought to qualify an anesthesiologist as an expert in chronic pain.

The court permitted the expert to testify regarding his diagnosis, observations, and prognosis of the plaintiff's chronic pain.

However, applying the Mohan and White Burgess frameworks, the court restricted the expert from opining on whether the accident caused the pain or whether the impairments met the statutory threshold for damages, reserving those ultimate issues for the jury.

Criminal trial arising from allegations that a high school teacher engaged in sexualized communications with one student and sexually touched another student.

The court held that corroboration was not required, but found significant frailties, inconsistencies, omissions, and concerns about possible tainting of witness evidence through pre-trial discussions.

Applying the governing principles on credibility, reliability, delayed disclosure, and collusion, the court found the evidence on the core allegations left a reasonable doubt.

Acquittals were entered on all four counts, including telecommunication for the purpose of facilitating child pornography, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault.

The Crown applied for an order permitting the complainant and her mother to testify by video link from Quebec in a trial for human trafficking and sexual assault.

The defence opposed the complainant testifying by video link but did not strenuously oppose the mother's request.

The court granted the application for the mother to testify from Quebec under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code.

For the complainant, the court found it appropriate for her to testify outside the courtroom but ordered that she must do so from the Oshawa courthouse, citing concerns about managing cross-examination with documents and transcripts if she were in Quebec.

The applicant's estate sought costs for a successful dependent's support motion.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $84,456.11 against the respondent estate trustee and the estate jointly and severally, citing the respondent's vituperative opposition and the applicant's unaccepted offer to settle.

A supporting respondent's request for costs was dismissed as there was no lis between him and the opposing respondent.

The accused, charged with gang sexual assault and other offences, brought applications under s. 276 of the Criminal Code to adduce evidence of the complainant's prior sexual comments, gestures, and interest in a sex club to support their defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent.

The court dismissed the application regarding the prior sexual comments and gestures, finding the evidence irrelevant and based on prohibited twin-myth reasoning.

The court permitted limited evidence regarding discussions about attending a sex club solely to provide context for a text message sent by one of the accused, with strict instructions against using it to infer consent.

Evidence of conversations immediately prior to the sexual encounters was ruled admissible.

The applicant estate trustee sought a declaration of the deceased's 50% interest in a condominium property.

The property was originally held in joint tenancy by the deceased and his mother.

The court found that the joint tenancy was severed prior to the deceased's death through the mother's unilateral instructions to her lawyer to sever the tenancy and the deceased's use of his interest as security for a support order.

The court declared the mother's subsequent survivorship application void and ordered the title rectified to reflect a tenancy in common, but declined to order partition and sale while the mother still resided in the property.

In a voir dire during a trial regarding historical programs at a psychiatric facility, the plaintiffs challenged the qualification of the defendants' proposed expert witness, Dr. Turrall.

The plaintiffs argued he lacked credibility because substantial portions of his report on the standard of care were copied verbatim from another expert's memo.

The court found the standard of care portion of the report unnecessary and excluded it, but qualified the expert to testify on causation issues regarding specific plaintiffs, as that portion of his report was based on his own review of medical records.