SCJ 2019

The applicant was the successful party in a motion/trial of an issue to determine the date of separation.

The applicant sought costs of $14,245, while the respondent suggested an award of $3,500 to $4,000.

The court found the applicant's claimed hours to be excessive and disproportionate to the single issue before the court.

Applying the factors in Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, the court fixed costs at $5,000 all inclusive, payable by the respondent.

In an action alleging that former employees started a competing business, both parties brought motions regarding the sufficiency of the other's affidavit of documents.

The defendants raised issues with the formatting and metadata of the plaintiffs' e-discovery productions, which were largely resolved by explanations provided at the hearing.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to produce financial statements and mitigation documents.

The court also ordered the corporate defendant to produce financial and business records, but limited the scope to the aspect of its business that competes with the plaintiffs.

A timetable for the remainder of the action was set.

The accused was charged with firearm offences after being arrested during a police takedown of a target he was accompanying.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging arbitrary detention and excessive use of force, supported by independent video evidence showing police kicking him while he was handcuffed on the ground.

The court found the detention was arbitrary as police lacked reasonable grounds, and excluded the firearm under s. 24(2) due to the seriousness of the police misconduct.

The court also found the Crown failed to prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt due to severe police credibility issues, resulting in an acquittal.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' defamation and unjust enrichment action after a five-day trial, the successful defendant sought costs.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs to the date of his settlement offers and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court found that the defendant's offers did not trigger substantial indemnity costs under Rule 49 and the plaintiffs' conduct did not warrant a punitive costs award.

The court awarded the defendant costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the amount at $59,940.78 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiffs commenced a defamation action against the defendants and noted them in default after they failed to deliver a notice of intent to defend.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside the noting in default, arguing irregularities in service and a minimal delay in responding once they became aware of the claim.

The court granted the motion, finding that the delay was minimal, there was no prejudice to the plaintiffs, and the action should be determined on its merits rather than on a technical breach.

The defendants were completely successful on a motion for third-party production of documents from the Special Investigations Unit (SIU).

They sought costs of $4,826.85 on a partial indemnity scale.

The SIU argued there should be no costs but conceded the quantum was reasonable.

The court awarded the requested costs, noting the documents were highly relevant and the SIU had opposed production based mainly on its own policies rather than the specific relevance to the litigation.

The applicant father brought a Hague Convention application seeking the return of his 8-year-old daughter to Italy after the respondent mother wrongfully removed her to Canada in 2017.

The mother argued that Italy was not the child's habitual residence, that returning her would pose a grave risk of harm, and that the child was now settled in Ontario.

The court rejected all of the mother's arguments, finding that the child's habitual residence was Italy, the allegations of abuse did not meet the high threshold for grave risk, and the child's status in Canada was precarious.

The court ordered the immediate return of the child to Italy.

The applicant successfully applied to enforce a $2 million judgment from a United States District Court against the respondent.

Following the decision, the applicant sought substantial indemnity costs of $33,373.40.

The court awarded the requested costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the applicant's unaccepted Rule 49 offer to settle and the respondent's unfounded allegations of fraud against the applicant's foreign counsel.

The plaintiff bank commenced a collection action for less than $19,000 in the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto against a self-represented defendant residing in Elliott Lake.

The defendant brought a motion to stay the proceeding as an abuse of process, arguing it was oppressive to force him to litigate a small claim in Toronto.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct was not vexatious or an abuse of process, but exercised its inherent jurisdiction to transfer the matter to the Small Claims Court in Elliott Lake, noting that claims within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court should ordinarily be litigated there.

The appellant corporation claimed a tax refund resulting from carrying back non-capital losses to a previous taxation year.

After a successful objection to a reassessment, the appellant received the refund but was denied the enhanced rate of interest under s. 82(5) of the Corporations Tax Act.

The appellant brought a Rule 21 motion to determine whether 'tax payable' under s. 82(5) must take into account a deduction from a loss carried back.

The court answered the question in the negative, finding that the specific deeming provision in s. 79(7) applies to the calculation of interest under s. 82(5), meaning tax payable is calculated without regard to subsequent year tax losses.

The appeal was effectively dismissed in favour of the respondent Crown.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 37.14(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a summary judgment order, arguing he was unable to attend the hearing for health reasons.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Rule 37.14(1)(b) does not apply where a party requests an adjournment that is denied, but rather only when a party fails to appear.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the defendant's right to bring a motion under Rule 59.06(2)(a) based on fresh evidence before the original motion judge.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that the child be placed in extended society care with no access.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there were genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the child's need for protection and placement in extended care, noting the mother's history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and failure to engage in services.

However, the court found that material facts were in dispute regarding the quality of access visits and ordered a focused hearing to determine the issue of access.

Sentencing following convictions for nine sexual offences committed by a fire chief against four male victims, including youth co-op students and a workplace subordinate.

The court rejected the offender's double jeopardy argument, holding that sexual assault and sexual exploitation each contain distinguishing elements and therefore both convictions could stand where they arose from the same factual nexus.

Applying the principles of denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, consecutive sentencing for child sexual offences, and totality, the court imposed a global penitentiary sentence of five years.

The court granted 7.5 days' credit for pre-sentence custody, denied further credit for bail conditions, and made DNA and lifetime sex offender registry orders.

The plaintiffs brought motions to certify three proposed class actions for settlement purposes against three immigration lawyers.

The plaintiffs alleged professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in the defendants' representation of Roma refugee claimants from Hungary.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, noting that compliance is not as strictly required for settlement purposes.

The motions for certification were granted.

The plaintiff commenced a proposed securities class action against the defendant alleging secondary market misrepresentations regarding its operations in Argentina.

After being unable to retrieve crucial documents due to pending criminal and regulatory investigations in Argentina, the plaintiff moved for a consent order to dismiss the action without costs.

The court approved the discontinuance under section 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, finding that the interests of the putative class members would not be prejudiced.

The respondent filed a 14B motion but failed to serve it on the applicant, attempting a fraud on the court.

The motion was dismissed, and the applicant sought costs of $9,491.10.

The court found the applicant's costs request excessive but awarded $2,500 plus HST ($2,825 total) to fully compensate the applicant and admonish the respondent for his wrongful conduct.

In a child protection proceeding, the maternal great-aunt brought a motion to be added as a party to seek access to the child.

The child's mother was deceased, and the child had been placed with the paternal grandmother since birth.

The Society sought a final order granting sole custody to the paternal grandmother.

The court applied the five-part test for adding a party and found that adding the great-aunt solely to pursue an access claim would unduly delay the proceeding and was not in the child's best interests, as the child required permanency.

The motion was dismissed, without prejudice to the great-aunt bringing a subsequent access claim under the Children's Law Reform Act.

Following a motion for directions in the passing of accounts for an incapable person's estate, the litigation guardian sought costs against a responding party who was found to be a vexatious litigant.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs fixed at $36,969, payable personally by the responding party, finding his attempts to re-litigate previously decided guardianship issues amounted to an abuse of process.

The respondent father brought a motion to enroll the parties' four-year-old child in a public school in Dundas, Ontario, while the applicant mother brought a cross-motion to enroll the child in Jarvis, Ontario.

The parties shared equal parenting time under a temporary order, but lived an hour apart.

The court applied the best interests of the child test, focusing on stability and the child's status quo.

Finding that the child's ordinary residence had historically been Dundas and that the father's plan offered more stability with fewer unsettling features, the court granted the father's motion and ordered the child enrolled in Dundas.

The offender, a 26-year-old first-time offender, was convicted of unauthorized possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and carrying a concealed weapon after fleeing from police.

The court considered the offender's positive pre-sentence report, lack of criminal record, and motive of self-protection against the aggravating factor of possessing a loaded firearm while fleeing.

Finding the offender's conduct fell between a mere licensing infraction and truly criminal conduct, the court imposed a sentence of 29 months' imprisonment.