SCJ 2020

The accused, F.D., applied for a bail review based on a material change in circumstances, including a new release plan, significant trial delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the general impact of the pandemic on the inmate population.

The court found the proposed release plan, involving strict house arrest, electronic monitoring, and supervision by the applicant's fiancée's parents, to be robust.

Considering the strength of the supervision plan and the public health risks posed by COVID-19 in detention centers, the court granted bail, concluding that release would not undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The court apportioned costs between the defendants following a 39-day trial where the plaintiffs were awarded approximately $12 million in damages.

The Jantzi defendants were found 80% at fault for a motor vehicle accident, and All Star Tap & Grill 20% at fault for over-serving alcohol, with the plaintiff Wesley Hummel 25% contributorily negligent.

The Jantzi defendants argued All Star should bear 80% of post-offer costs due to their refusal to settle, while All Star argued costs should follow the trial's liability apportionment (75% Jantzi, 25% All Star after contributory negligence).

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01 and Section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, including offers to settle and policy limits.

Ultimately, the court ordered the Jantzi defendants to pay one-third of the plaintiffs' costs and All Star Tap & Grill to pay two-thirds, based on their respective insurance policy limits ($1 million for Jantzi, $2 million for All Star).

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary damages following a jury trial in a personal injury action.

The jury awarded general damages but zero for past income loss, future income loss, future housekeeping, and future healthcare costs.

The motion judge, exercising statutory duty to determine the threshold under s. 267.5(5)(b) of the Insurance Act, found that the plaintiff's impairments were not permanent, important, or serious.

The judge considered the jury's implied findings regarding the plaintiff's credibility and the non-permanence of injuries, preferring the defendants' medical expert evidence.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary loss was dismissed.

The respondent father applied for the return of his children to Poland under the Hague Convention, alleging wrongful removal by the applicant mother.

The mother admitted wrongful removal but sought to rely on the grave risk and child's objection exceptions under Article 13(b) and 13(2).

The court found that the mother failed to meet the high threshold for the grave risk exception, noting that her allegations of abuse were not substantiated by Polish courts and her own actions contradicted her claims.

The court also found that the children's objections were not sufficiently mature or independent to trigger the Article 13(2) exception.

Consequently, the court ordered the forthwith return of the children to Poland and denied the mother's request for conditions on their return.

The mother brought an urgent, ex parte motion to change a final joint custody order to allow her to relocate with the child.

The court considered the motion under the COVID-19 Notices to the Profession.

The court found the motion was not urgent enough to proceed without notice, but qualified as a pressing matter.

The court ordered the mother to serve the father and scheduled a case conference.

John Przybytek, having successfully obtained an order to discharge an invalid and unconscionable mortgage, sought substantial indemnity costs against 3002071 Canada Inc., 1457563 Ontario Inc., and lawyer Claude-Alain Burdet personally.

The court awarded costs against 3002071 Canada Inc. only, on a substantial indemnity basis, for fees and disbursements incurred up to March 11, 2019, totaling $16,570.00.

The request for costs against Mr. Burdet personally was denied, as the court found that the applicant's own counsel's firm had engaged in similar problematic conduct regarding a second mortgage, creating an ironic basis for the argument.

The applicant father was found in contempt for failing to return the children after an access visit, despite eventually purging the contempt.

This endorsement addresses the sanction for contempt and the award of costs.

The court imposed a penalty of $252 and awarded full indemnity costs of $3,968.81 to the respondent mother, payable at $200 per month.

The decision emphasized the father's bad faith, misrepresentation of facts, and the negative impact of his actions on the children and the mother's ability to provide for them, outweighing his limited ability to pay due to disability.

The plaintiff underwent open-heart surgery to remove a mass that was pre-operatively diagnosed as a likely myxoma (tumor) but was post-operatively confirmed to be a thrombus (blood clot).

The plaintiff brought a medical negligence action against the involved cardiologists, cardiac surgeon, and cardiac anaesthetist, alleging they breached the standard of care by failing to diagnose the mass as a clot and treat it medically, and by failing to obtain informed consent.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the physicians met the standard of care in their differential diagnosis and treatment plan, as the mass had unusual features suggestive of a tumor and required surgical removal regardless.

The court also found that causation was not established and that informed consent was properly obtained.

K.R. was charged with first-degree murder of his mother.

He sought to plead guilty to second-degree murder, which the Crown refused.

The trial focused on whether the murder was planned and deliberate, which would elevate it to first-degree murder.

The court found that while K.R. murdered his mother, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was planned and deliberate, dismissing the Crown's theory based on an internet search and the nature of the attack.

K.R. was found guilty of second-degree murder.

J.L. was arrested and detained for an indecent act and probation breach.

He sought a review of his continuing detention under section 525 of the Criminal Code.

The court found his continued detention was no longer justified given the pre-trial custody already served, the anticipated length of time to bring the matter to trial, and a community-based release plan arranged by amicus curiae.

Despite a criminal record including sexual assault and multiple indecent acts, and a history of non-compliance, the court emphasized that further incarceration would not provide enduring public protection where reliable community supports were available to address the root causes of his offending behavior.

J.L. was released on his own recognizance with specific conditions related to shelter, mental health support, and restrictions on proximity to children.

The insured renewed a travel insurance policy by telephone, providing answers about medical conditions.

After hospitalization, the insurer denied the claim due to alleged misrepresentation.

The insured's estate argued that the insurer could not rely on oral statements, asserting that Statutory Condition 2 of the Insurance Act required written statements.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the insurer's practice of providing a written application for review and correction after the telephone interview satisfied the statutory requirement and the consumer protection objectives of the Insurance Act.

The applicant, Rashon Mair, sought a bail review following his detention by a Justice of the Peace.

Counsel argued for release based on material changes in circumstance: completion of a prior sentence, discharge of more serious charges from a preliminary hearing, and the COVID-19 pandemic impacting his health (asthma) and trial timeliness.

The Crown conceded a material change but maintained concerns on the secondary ground (public safety/likelihood of committing further offences), citing Mair's prior breach of recognizance and questioning the sureties' suitability.

The court acknowledged the material changes, including the relevance of COVID-19, but found the proposed release plan, involving his parents as sureties under house arrest, insufficient to address the substantial risk of Mair committing further offences or interfering with justice, given his history of violence and breach of prior bail conditions.

The application was dismissed, but leave was granted for a further application with a more robust plan.

The applicant, Birhan Imam, sought an order of certiorari to quash a committal for trial on a charge of attempted murder, alleging the preliminary inquiry judge applied an erroneous legal test for mens rea.

The Superior Court reviewed the preliminary inquiry judge's reasons, finding that while a specific passage might appear ambiguous, when read in totality, the judge correctly identified and applied the "intention to kill" mens rea for attempted murder as established in R. v. Ancio.

The application for certiorari was dismissed.

The court also held that even if there had been a jurisdictional error, the committal would have been inevitable given the strong evidence of intent to kill, and thus, prerogative relief would have been declined due to lack of prejudice.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, an urgent case conference, an order restraining the respondent father's communication, and an order preventing the father from filming exchanges.

The court found the concerns, though not COVID-19 related, impacted current parenting arrangements and met the test for urgency.

The court ordered a teleconference to be scheduled, set deadlines for reply affidavits, limited argument times, and indicated an intention to address the OCL request and potential modifications to parenting arrangements at the conference.

The plaintiff, Canadian National Railway Company, sought to continue an interim injunction against protestors blockading its main rail line and to compel OPP officers to identify the protestors for contempt proceedings.

The court validated service of the motion record, continued the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience favoring the plaintiff.

The court also granted leave to examine an OPP officer to identify the protestors, expressing concern over police inaction in enforcing the initial order.

The applicants, a senior couple, sought to bring an urgent application for leave to evict residential tenants, despite a provincial moratorium on evictions, and requested the court to grant an eviction order.

The court declined to schedule the proposed application, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to issue an initial eviction order for residential tenants.

Such jurisdiction rests exclusively with the Landlord and Tenant Board under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The court clarified that its role under Rule 60.17 is limited to providing directions for enforcing an *existing* eviction order, not creating one.

The accused, JF, was tried on nine counts including sexual assault, unlawful confinement, choking, assault with weapon, assault causing bodily harm, assault, and robbery.

The complainant, AB, did not appear at trial, and her preliminary inquiry testimony was admitted.

The defence challenged AB's credibility regarding her relationship with JF, her pregnancy, and inconsistencies with forensic evidence.

The court found AB's testimony unreliable and inconsistent with other evidence, including JF's credible account and the lack of corroborating forensic findings.

JF was acquitted on all counts.

The offender requested an earlier hearing date for a pending dangerous offender application, arguing the only remaining issue was credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court initially agreed to proceed by teleconference.

However, after reviewing the sentencing briefs, the Crown requested to cross-examine the offender and call institutional evidence regarding Covid-19 measures, prompting the defence to also request to call evidence.

The court concluded the matter was not capable of being heard by teleconference and adjourned the application to its previously scheduled return date.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking expanded and overnight access to the child, Raphael, and a change in access exchange location.

The applicant mother opposed the motion.

The court found that the motion was not urgent, noting that existing access arrangements were largely being followed and that the father had misrepresented the urgency.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to existing court orders and bail conditions, and the need for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer or a private assessment to determine the child's best interests regarding overnight access.

The father's motion was dismissed.

This caselaw entry indicates that the reasons for the decision in R. v. Ibrahim, 2020 ONSC 3024, are not available at this time.

No details regarding the nature of the proceedings or the outcome are provided.