SCJ 2019

The self-represented applicant brought a motion, with the respondent's consent, to remove a family law judgment from online access and to redact identifying information, citing cultural stigma regarding divorce and potential negative impacts on her family.

The court dismissed the motion, applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test and finding no evidence of serious debilitating physical or emotional harm that would justify an exception to the open court principle.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion on the basis of forum non conveniens, the Litigation Trust and the Class sought costs.

The court awarded the Class $6,000 on a partial indemnity basis for maintaining a watching brief.

The court awarded the Litigation Trust full indemnity costs of $208,590.73, finding that the defendants' motion was captured by the Standstill Agreement between the parties, which provided for full indemnity costs in the event of a breach.

The applicant, a university professor, sought a declaration that the respondent insurer had a duty to defend her in a defamation action brought by a former colleague in Trinidad and Tobago.

The insurer denied coverage, arguing the applicant was not acting on behalf of the university when she made the impugned statements and thus was not an 'Additional Insured'.

The court found that the pleadings raised the mere possibility that the applicant was acting in her capacity as a professor on behalf of the university when she provided an off-list reference.

The court declared the insurer had a duty to defend but held the insurer retained the right to appoint defence counsel.

The applicant sought an urgent interlocutory injunction or leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) to prevent the respondents from selling or encumbering a jointly owned commercial property.

The parties were in a joint venture that had deteriorated, leading to a mortgage default.

The respondents acquired the mortgage debt through a related company and intended to sell the property under power of sale.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the dispute was fundamentally about money and realizing on an investment, not a unique interest in land, and that damages would be an adequate remedy.

The parties brought cross-motions in a construction lien action.

The plaintiff moved to strike paragraphs of the defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim as frivolous and vexatious, arguing they pleaded irrelevant and prejudicial facts regarding a failure to assist in obtaining financing.

The defendant moved to compel answers to refused questions and production of documents from a section 40 cross-examination, and sought costs thrown away.

The Master dismissed the motion to strike, finding the pleaded facts were material to the alleged breach of contract.

The Master ordered the plaintiff to produce the requested costing documents, as the nature of the contract (fixed price vs. cost-plus) was in dispute, making the documents potentially relevant.

The request for costs thrown away was denied.

The moving party father brought a motion seeking summer access to his two children in Egypt, the UAE, or the USA.

The responding party mother opposed the motion, citing a previous incident where the children disappeared for 10 days in Egypt, outstanding criminal charges against the father in Canada for alleged physical abuse, and the fact that Egypt and the UAE are not signatories to the Hague Convention.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father had shown disregard for the Canadian court system and the children's welfare, and that the risk of the children not being returned to Canada outweighed the benefits of the proposed international access.

The applicant, charged with cocaine trafficking offences, brought a Garofoli application seeking to quash search warrants for two residences and exclude the seized evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found sufficient grounds for the warrant at the applicant's current residence, but insufficient grounds for his former residence due to stale information, resulting in a s. 8 Charter breach.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the s. 8 breach was at the less serious end of the spectrum and the reliable evidence was crucial to the prosecution of serious offences, thus admitting the evidence and dismissing the application.

The applicant municipality sought an order under s. 38 of the Building Code Act for the removal or demolition of buildings placed on the respondent's property without a permit.

The property was subject to a holding provision in the zoning by-law, which restricted use to existing uses until a site plan agreement was entered into, requiring the construction of a road to municipal standards.

The court found the respondent violated the zoning by-law and the Building Code Act, and granted the order for removal or demolition, along with an injunction against occupying the buildings.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction (asset freezing order) against several defendants, alleging a complex commercial fraud involving misappropriated funds, illicit acquisition fees, and kickbacks across multiple real estate development projects.

While the court found a strong prima facie case of fraud against the defendant Lee regarding his receipt of concealed acquisition fees, it found no such case against the other responding defendants.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the motion against all defendants because the plaintiffs failed to establish a real risk of asset dissipation, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the extraordinary remedy.

The father brought a motion to change a final order to seek retroactive and ongoing child support for the parties' 25-year-old severely disabled son, who moved into his care in 2014.

The court found a material change in circumstances and that the son remained a child of the marriage.

The court declined to order retroactive support due to the father's delay and failure to provide a budget.

For ongoing support, the court applied section 3(2)(b) of the Child Support Guidelines, apportioning the son's expenses not covered by government funding between the parents based on their respective incomes, resulting in the mother paying $1,167.52 per month.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine after border services officers discovered a body pack during a secondary inspection at the airport.

The accused brought a Charter motion to exclude the evidence, arguing she was unlawfully detained during questioning and that officers violated her right to counsel by conducting a search incident to arrest before she could speak with duty counsel.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding the initial questioning was routine screening and that officers were not required to hold off on a search incident to arrest while awaiting a call back from duty counsel.

The accused was found guilty.

Hydro One brought a motion for an interim and interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from interfering with the completion of the Niagara Reinforcement Project (NRP).

The defendants, asserting indigenous rights and jurisdiction, had blocked access to the construction site.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding a strong prima facie case of trespass, irreparable harm due to potential financial losses and safety risks, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The court also held that as a private entity, Hydro One owed no duty to consult.

The injunction was granted.

The applicant commercial tenant sought a permanent injunction and relief from forfeiture after being locked out by the respondent landlord.

The landlord had terminated the lease due to the tenant's failure to remedy a persistent mould issue that was affecting an adjacent unit.

The court found that the tenant had not acted diligently or in good faith to repair the issue despite numerous opportunities.

The court dismissed the application for an injunction, finding the tenant barely established a serious issue to be tried, failed to show irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the landlord.

The court also denied relief from forfeiture due to the tenant's poor conduct and failure to come to court with clean hands.

The applicant child protection agency sought a temporary order placing two children in the care of their maternal grandparents, citing concerns about the parents' mental health and historical conflict.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children to her care subject to agency supervision.

The court found that the agency failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe the children would suffer harm if returned to the mother under supervision, noting that the parents had separated and the agency relied heavily on the grandmother's uncorroborated statements.

The children were ordered returned to the mother with conditions.

The plaintiff commenced a personal injury action against a police officer and the police services board alleging unreasonable use of force.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 30.10 for production of interview records and notes from the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) regarding four civilian witnesses.

The SIU opposed the motion.

The court granted the motion, finding that the documents were highly relevant to the issue of reasonable force and that it would be unfair to require the defendants to proceed to trial without them, especially since two witnesses could not be located and two refused to consent to production.

The accused, charged with kidnapping and human trafficking, brought a Charter application challenging production orders for their cell phone records.

They argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable grounds to believe the records would afford evidence of the offences, as there was no evidence they possessed or used cell phones during the alleged offences.

The court agreed, finding the ITO relied on mere suspicion rather than credibly-based probability, resulting in a breach of section 8 of the Charter.

A subsequent hearing will determine if the evidence should be excluded under section 24(2).

Following a five-day trial on a motion to change where the applicant successfully terminated spousal support, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The respondent, who was self-represented, advanced untenable claims for retroactive and indefinite support before abandoning them on the final day of trial.

The court found the respondent's litigation conduct unreasonable and awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $32,257.39, representing 70 percent of full recovery.

The applicant, the common-law spouse of the deceased, brought a dependent's support claim against the deceased's intestate estate.

Prior to the deceased's death, the applicant transferred approximately $570,000 to herself while acting as his Power of Attorney.

The court found that despite these transfers, the estate had not adequately provided for the applicant's future needs and the deceased's moral obligations.

The court awarded the applicant the farm house property, the funds already received, and an additional cash payment, totaling approximately half of the estate's value.

The accused, charged with four robberies, brought a pre-trial application to exclude text messages recovered from his cellphone.

The texts, exchanged with a co-perpetrator, discussed obtaining a vehicle and committing robberies.

The accused argued the texts were more prejudicial than probative, particularly one referencing a plan to rob a bank.

The court dismissed the application, finding the texts highly probative of identity and lacking any improper prejudicial effect.

Certain texts referencing uncharged drug offences were redacted on consent.

The plaintiff, on behalf of his deceased father's estate, brought a motion to compel the passing of accounts regarding the spending of his father's deceased wife, who had acted as the father's Attorney for Property for nearly ten years.

The defendant, the wife's daughter and estate trustee, opposed the motion, arguing she could not account for her mother's spending and would be unfairly prejudiced.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there is no statutory limitation period for passing accounts, ordering one in these circumstances would result in a clear injustice, and the issues surrounding suspicious property transfers were better suited for the outstanding main action.