SCJ 2020

This is a triage endorsement concerning an urgent motion brought by the respondent father during the COVID-19 pandemic to liberalize access to the parties' child, including overnight visits and driving privileges, based on a psychiatrist's report.

The applicant mother opposed, challenging the report and seeking disclosure from the father's psychologist.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, determined that the specific issues of liberalizing access were not urgent, being complex matters without significant prejudice if delayed.

However, the court clarified that any reduction in the father's existing time-sharing arrangement would be presumptively urgent.

The father's motion to proceed was not authorized at this time, without prejudice to future urgent requests if existing access was threatened.

The defendant insurer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for short-term and long-term disability benefits, arguing the claims were statute-barred, no LTD application was submitted, policy breaches occurred, and the insurer was prejudiced by lack of medical evidence.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that the action was commenced within the applicable limitation period, adequate proof of claim for LTD benefits was submitted, and the insurer was not prejudiced.

Leave was granted to the plaintiff to amend her Statement of Claim.

The applicant sought an urgent case conference to establish supervised access to her children and to obtain a section 30 CLRA assessment.

The court denied the urgent motion, finding that the applicant failed to meet the urgency test, particularly given the long period of no contact with the children and the lack of evidence regarding available supervisory services or assessors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court emphasized that the issues were not urgent as defined by the Notices to the Profession and lacked practical feasibility.

The applicant, Zaaman Yusuf, sought a bail review after being denied bail on secondary and tertiary grounds for serious charges including kidnapping, forcible confinement, extortion, aggravated assault, and firearm and drug offences.

The defence argued for release based on a revised supervision plan with two sureties and the material change in circumstances presented by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the addition of a second surety did not constitute a material change and expressed concerns about the sureties' naiveté regarding the applicant's activities and the plan's ability to prevent re-offending or interference with justice.

While acknowledging the pandemic as a material change, the court found no specific health vulnerability for the applicant and noted the correctional facility's measures.

Ultimately, the application for release was denied, concluding that public confidence in the administration of justice would be eroded by the applicant's release given the gravity of the offences, the strength of the Crown's case, and the deficiencies in the proposed supervision plan.

The Representative Plaintiff in a certified class action sought court approval for a $4.2 million settlement with the defendant auditor, approval of Class Counsel's contingency fees and disbursements, and an honorarium for the Representative Plaintiff.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the litigation risks and protracted nature of the case.

Class Counsel's fees and disbursements, and the Representative Plaintiff's honorarium, were also approved.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to reinstate alternate weekend access to his two children, which the respondent mother had unilaterally suspended citing COVID-19 concerns.

The court, acting as Triage Judge during the pandemic, determined that the issues raised were potentially urgent, given the alleged interruption of a long-standing time-sharing pattern.

The court set a schedule for the respondent to file responding materials and for the applicant to file a reply, with the matter to be scheduled for a future hearing.

D.D. applied for a bail review, citing a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic and trial delay.

The court dismissed the application, finding that D.D. failed to satisfy the secondary and tertiary grounds for release.

The decision highlighted D.D.'s extensive criminal record, history of non-compliance with court orders, and the inadequacy of the proposed supervision plan.

The court concluded that the pandemic, while a relevant factor, did not outweigh the significant risk of reoffending and the necessity to maintain public confidence in the justice system.

The applicant sought a declaration that their tenancy was governed by the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) and to continue an interim injunction against lockout.

The respondent sought a declaration that the Commercial Tenancies Act (CTA) applied and an order for possession.

The court applied the "predominant purpose" test under RTA s. 5(j) and s. 202, considering all circumstances including the actual use of the premises, the parties' intentions, and the landlord's knowledge.

The court found the tenancy's predominant purpose was residential, thus the RTA applied, and the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction.

The respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving the s. 5(j) exemption.

The plaintiff commenced a construction lien action.

Both parties consented to refer the matter for trial before a Master.

The court granted the referral, directing the action to proceed to trial before a Master in Toronto.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to establish weekly video-conferences with the child after relocating to British Columbia.

The court, acting as a Triage Judge during COVID-19 suspensions, made a preliminary determination that the issues raised were potentially urgent.

The court set a schedule for the applicant mother to file responding materials and for the respondent father to file reply materials, with the matter to be scheduled for a judge on or after May 13, 2020, for a formal urgency determination and necessary orders.

This application concerned claims of oppression and declaratory relief brought by 37 townhouse unit owners against their condominium corporation.

The applicants alleged unfair treatment by a high-rise dominated Board of Directors, specifically regarding charges for interlock paving/steps, retroactive water charges, maintenance/landscaping/snow removal, and amenities, as well as inadequate notice practices.

The court found that the Corporation was responsible for the costs of interlock repairs and retroactive water charges due to lack of proper notice and inconsistent application of the Declaration.

It also declared the Corporation responsible for landscaping and snow removal for townhouse verandas and steps.

While the charge for amenities was deemed valid, the court urged regularization by bylaw and emphasized the need for proper notice delivery methods.

The court found the Board's management to be poor and unprofessional but ultimately concluded that their actions, while close to oppression, did not meet the legal threshold for an oppression remedy.

The father applied under the Hague Convention for the immediate return of his three children from Canada to Israel, alleging wrongful removal by the mother.

The mother opposed the application, asserting that returning to Israel would expose her and the children to a grave risk of physical and psychological harm, and would place them in an intolerable situation, thereby invoking exceptions under Article 13(b) and Article 20 of the Hague Convention.

The court found a history of domestic abuse by the father against the mother, suspicious circumstances surrounding a grenade attack at the grandparents' home, and the father's use of intimidation.

The court also considered the mother and children's status as Convention Refugees in Canada, which created a rebuttable presumption of persecution risk if returned.

The court concluded that the mother had discharged her burden to prove the exceptions applied, and therefore dismissed the father's application for the children's return to Israel.

The moving party sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the mortgagee respondents from listing a mortgaged property for sale following default and disputed redemption amounts.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald framework, the court held that no irreparable harm was established because the accounting issues could be addressed after sale and compensated in damages, and the property was not shown to be unique.

The court further held that the balance of convenience favoured the mortgagees, given admitted arrears, tax liens, evidence that the property was vacant and in disrepair, and the mortgagees' contractual enforcement rights.

The motion was dismissed, with costs payable to the respondents, though the court granted leave to bring an urgent application concerning payment into court to discharge the mortgage.

The court issued an endorsement following a case conference regarding whether an examination for discovery should proceed remotely by videoconference or in person during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiffs objected to a remote examination, citing concerns about assisting counsel, assessing witness demeanor, lack of solemnity, and potential for abuse.

The court, applying Rule 1.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, ordered the examination to proceed by videoconference, emphasizing the imperative of technological competency and the need to avoid litigation delays, finding that the benefits of proceeding remotely outweighed the perceived risks.

The Applicant mother overheld the parties' children due to COVID-19 safety concerns regarding the Respondent father's compliance with protocols.

A case conference was held by teleconference, resulting in an interim consent order for parenting time and exchanges.

The order specifies transfer logistics, communication protocols via Our Family Wizard, administration of medication, and social distancing measures.

The parties were encouraged to discuss adjusting the parenting schedule and making up missed time.

The applicant mother sought an urgent order to enforce existing access arrangements and obtain make-up time, including a police enforcement clause, due to the respondent father's unilateral withholding of access.

The father brought a cross-motion to restrict the mother's access to video conferencing until counselling was completed, citing concerns about the mother's partner and the child's safety, despite a Children's Aid Society (CAS) investigation not verifying his allegations.

The court found the mother's motion urgent, criticized the father's unilateral actions and his undermining of the child's relationship with the mother, and dismissed the father's cross-motion.

The accused, Ricardo Davidson, sought release on a recognizance with house arrest terms after being in custody since July 30, 2019, facing multiple charges including sex trafficking, firearm possession, threatening, and assault.

This was his first bail hearing, and it was a reverse onus case.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Davidson failed to demonstrate that his continued detention was not justified on secondary and tertiary grounds under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

The proposed release plan with a surety was deemed insufficient to mitigate the substantial likelihood of re-offending or interfering with justice, given the gravity of the charges, the strength of the Crown's case, and the accused's criminal record.

The court also addressed and dismissed arguments regarding pre-trial delay due to a joint trial and the risk of COVID-19 in detention.

This is a triage endorsement for an urgent motion in a family law matter.

The applicant mother sought the return of her two children, alleging the respondent father refused to return them after a visit, disrupting a long-standing parenting status quo.

The court made a preliminary finding that the issues were potentially urgent and set a schedule for the filing of materials, emphasizing the need for evidence from both parents.

The court also provided guidance on parenting principles, including reluctance to disrupt status quo, maximum contact, and disapproval of unilateral action.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for a temporary order for primary residential care of the three children, with specific parenting time for the respondent father.

The father opposed, seeking a different schedule, including equal residential time when he returned to work.

The court found serious credibility issues with the father's evidence and noted his conduct in overholding and withholding the children.

The mother's account of primary caregiving prior to separation was accepted.

The court granted the mother primary residential care, finding it to be in the children's best interests, and dismissed the father's counter-proposal for immediate or future equal residential time due to the children's need for stability.

The respondent brought a motion to expand access to the child and to stay a previous costs order.

The applicant opposed, arguing no urgency and that the respondent should not be heard due to unpaid costs.

The court dismissed the motion to stay costs, finding no urgency.

Regarding access, the court found urgency due to the child's developmental stage and pandemic-related delays, and ordered a phased expansion of Sunday access hours, but denied immediate overnight access.

The court also ordered the respondent to comply with public health regulations related to his employment as a nurse.

No costs were awarded for this motion.