SCJ 2019

The appellant was convicted of impaired driving after a police officer followed his ATV from a public road onto a private driveway to conduct a random sobriety check under the Highway Traffic Act.

The officer had no prior suspicion of impairment.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice held that police lack statutory or common law authority to conduct random sobriety stops on private property without articulable cause.

The court found the stop violated the appellant's right against arbitrary detention under section 9 of the Charter, excluded the evidence under section 24(2), and entered an acquittal.

The accused was charged after responding to an online escort advertisement used in a police sting targeting persons seeking sexual services from minors, and after continuing a text exchange in which the purported sex worker stated she was 15.

Applying the Supreme Court’s framework in Morrison, the court held the Crown had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused actually believed, or was wilfully blind to, the person being underage.

The court found wilful blindness was not established because the accused asked questions directed to age, and the evidence left a reasonable doubt whether he believed the stated age or merely proceeded recklessly in the face of the risk.

Because recklessness was insufficient for luring mens rea, the accused was acquitted on all counts.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment for unpaid legal bills obtained by her former legal counsel.

The court found that the defendant moved promptly upon learning of the enforcement steps, had a reasonable explanation for the default due to ongoing settlement negotiations, and raised an arguable defence regarding the amount owed.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was granted, but the defendant was ordered to pay $5,000 in costs to the plaintiff for the motion.

The respondent father brought a motion to find the applicant mother in contempt of a joint custody order and to force their 11-year-old daughter to return to her previous school.

The father alleged the mother unilaterally transferred the child to a new school for a sports program without his consent.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the father was aware of the proposed change and did not object until the school year began.

The court also dismissed the request to change the child's school, noting the child's excitement and happiness at the new school and the lack of contradictory evidence from the father.

The respondent requested a five-month adjournment of the trial due to medical issues, despite previously agreeing to a peremptory trial date.

The applicant opposed the adjournment but requested the release of funds held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home if the trial was delayed.

The court removed the trial from the current sittings and adjourned the matter to be spoken to, noting the unfairness of the repeated delays to the applicant.

To balance the prejudice, the court ordered the immediate release of the applicant's 50% share of the home proceeds, plus a $15,000 advance from the respondent's share to account for costs thrown away and ongoing needs.

The plaintiff physician brought an action against the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons after it determined he did not meet the eligibility requirements to sit the internal medicine national exam based on his US residency training.

Both parties moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the College's motion and dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding no genuine issue for trial as the plaintiff failed to establish any legal duty breached by the College or any damages suffered.

The accused, convicted of 12 counts of fraud in a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme, brought a motion alleging the Crown failed to make timely disclosure and failed to preserve evidence, seeking a stay of proceedings.

The court found that while there were some minor oversights in disclosure, they did not impact the accused's ability to make full answer and defence.

The court also found no duty on the police to preserve irrelevant emails and noted a lack of due diligence by the accused in requesting disclosure.

The disclosure application was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of twelve counts of fraud over $5000 for operating a large-scale Ponzi scheme disguised as a currency trading business.

He defrauded investors of approximately $15.6 million by misrepresenting his trading success, diverting funds for personal use, and using new investor money to pay earlier investors.

The court sentenced the offender to 9 years in prison, ordered restitution of $14.4 million, imposed a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $15.6 million, and issued a lifetime prohibition order preventing him from having authority over the money or property of others.

The applicant, charged with fraud over $5000 for allegedly collecting social assistance overpayments, brought a Rowbotham application seeking a stay of proceedings pending state-funded counsel.

The applicant argued the case was complex and he lacked the means to retain private counsel.

The court dismissed the application, finding the case was primarily fact-based and not sufficiently complex to warrant state-funded counsel at the preliminary inquiry stage, without prejudice to renew the application if committed to trial.

The applicant mother sought costs of $35,343.30 following a 13-day trial regarding a motion to change parenting and child support provisions.

The respondent father argued each party should bear their own costs or pay a maximum of $10,000.

The court found the mother was substantially more successful on the primary issue of maintaining joint custody and the parenting schedule.

Considering the factors under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, including divided success, the parties' behaviour, and the father's ability to pay, the court ordered the father to pay costs of $20,000 to the mother.

The plaintiff brought a motion to approve a $19,000,000 settlement in a class action regarding unpaid overtime, as well as a distribution protocol and class counsel fees of 33%.

The court appointed amicus curiae to assist in assessing the reasonableness of the settlement and fees.

Finding the settlement to be a rational compromise based on expert analysis of electronic timekeeping data, and the contingency fee to be consistent with similar class proceedings, the court approved the settlement, distribution protocol, and class counsel fees.

The defendant homeowners brought a motion to vacate a construction lien registered by the plaintiff contractor, arguing the lien had expired before perfection because the contract was abandoned earlier than claimed.

The homeowners also sought an order for security for costs.

The court found the contractor did not abandon the project until the homeowners refused access, meaning the lien was preserved and perfected in time.

The court also dismissed the motion for security for costs, finding the corporate plaintiff was impecunious and its claim was not obviously devoid of merit.

The respondent wife brought a motion for interim spousal support, both retroactive and prospective.

The parties separated 6.5 years prior, during which time the applicant husband paid all carrying costs for the matrimonial home where the respondent resided.

The court declined to determine retroactive support on an interim motion due to complexity.

For prospective interim spousal support, the court imputed a full-time minimum wage income to the respondent and ordered the applicant to continue paying the carrying costs of the home as the status quo until its sale, after which he must pay $4,840 per month in accordance with the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault and assault causing bodily harm against his father and sister.

The appeal was based on the trial judge's erroneous application of the rule in Browne v. Dunn and an impermissible adverse inference drawn from the appellant's exercise of his right to silence when questioned by police about his injuries.

The Crown conceded the Browne v. Dunn errors but argued the curative proviso should apply.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the errors were not harmless or trivial and the evidence was not so overwhelming as to make a conviction inevitable.

The defendant brought an application under s. 24(1) of the Charter for a stay of proceedings, alleging that police used excessive force during his arrest in violation of ss. 7 and 12.

The defendant sustained a laceration to his head and bruising during a struggle after attempting to flee in his vehicle.

The court found that the defendant violently resisted arrest and weaponized his vehicle, and that the force used by the officers to subdue him was not unnecessary or excessive.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

Ontario brought a motion to reopen Stage One of the trial to admit newly discovered evidence, specifically the Fort William Jesuit Mission Diary and a September 30, 1850 entry, along with expert opinion evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence would not probably have changed the result of the trial and could have been discovered with reasonable diligence.

The court also ruled that the expert opinion evidence was inadmissible on the motion as it was not necessary and its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.

The plaintiff brought a motion to transfer his wrongful dismissal action from Toronto to Sarnia, citing the declining health of his wife who required his care.

The defendants opposed the transfer.

The court applied the holistic balancing test under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While acknowledging the plaintiff's caregiving responsibilities, the court noted that the other parties and counsel were located closer to Toronto, and the corporate defendant operated virtually.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish that Sarnia was a significantly better venue and dismissed the motion.

The accused applied for the production of third-party records from a school board and a children's aid society relating to two complainants.

Having previously found the records likely relevant, the court proceeded to the second stage of the O'Connor application to determine whether production should be ordered.

Applying the principles from McNeil, the court balanced the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the complainants' privacy interests.

The court ordered the production of the records, subject to redactions for plainly irrelevant and highly sensitive personal information.

Multiple actions arising from a complex land development dispute involving co-ownership agreements for two farm properties in Markham.

Fram alleged Romandale breached the co-ownership agreements by entering into a conditional agreement to sell its interest to Kerbel.

Kerbel later entered into a settlement agreement with Fram to delay the closing of its purchase from Romandale for decades.

The court found that Romandale did not breach the co-ownership agreements.

Furthermore, the court held that Kerbel repudiated its agreement with Romandale by entering into the settlement agreement with Fram, which fundamentally altered the timeline for closing.

All claims by Fram and Kerbel against Romandale were dismissed, and Romandale was granted a declaration that its agreement with Kerbel was at an end.

The applicants, minority shareholders in a family-owned wholesale grocery business, brought an oppression application against the majority shareholders and the company.

The dispute arose over succession planning, with the majority seeking to sell the company's assets to a third-generation family member, which the applicants opposed.

The court found that while the applicants did not have a reasonable expectation of passing their shares to their sons, the proposed asset sale and certain workplace actions were oppressive.

The court ordered the sale of the applicants' shares at fair market value to the proposed purchaser or the company.