SCJ 2020

The applicant, P.S., sought a review of a detention order.

The Crown conceded that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances, allowing for a de novo bail review.

The applicant proposed a new release plan with three sureties, strict house arrest, and electronic monitoring.

The court distinguished the case from R. v. Hastings, noting the applicant's lack of criminal record, time spent in custody, and the general increased risk of COVID-19 in detention facilities.

The court found the proposed plan, including significant surety pledges and electronic monitoring, sufficient to address secondary ground concerns.

The applicant was released on strict conditions.

The applicant father brought a motion for a case conference to address the termination of a child support order, following a change in custody where the child was placed in his care.

The respondent mother had refused to consent to the termination.

The court granted the motion for a case conference, providing specific directions for its scheduling and conduct, and indicated that the mother should be prepared to address a suspension of the support order pending a final determination.

During the COVID-19 suspension of court operations, the court issued directions for a case conference concerning access to the parties' child.

This followed an urgent motion where the respondent mother was found in breach of a prior consent access order.

The endorsement outlines specific procedural directions for the conference, including electronic filing and a restricted focus on access, and declares these directions to be an immediately operative and enforceable order.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order for police enforcement of existing access exchange terms or a temporary suspension of access if the respondent father failed to return the children.

The court, acting as Triage Judge during the COVID-19 suspension of regular operations, determined the matter was urgent.

It issued a temporary, without prejudice order directing that access exchanges continue at the police station parking lot, with parties remaining in their vehicles, in accordance with the operative court order, while acknowledging the father's concerns about COVID-19 exposure and the general undesirability of police station exchanges.

The court also set a timeline for the motion to be heard on its merits if the respondent wished to file materials.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment against the defendants for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale of real estate.

The defendants failed to close the transaction, leading to the plaintiffs reselling their home at a significant loss.

The defendants raised defenses of non est factum and failure to tender, and challenged the appropriateness of partial summary judgment and the calculation of damages.

The court dismissed the defendants' defenses, found partial summary judgment appropriate given the severability of the main action from the third-party claims, and assessed the plaintiffs' damages at $298,847.67.

The court ordered the immediate release of the $30,000 deposit to the plaintiffs and stayed the enforcement of the remaining judgment for six months, pending the resolution of the defendants' third-party claim.

Colleen Cahill, charged with multiple provincial and federal offences including theft, break and enter, and administration of justice offences, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained on primary and secondary grounds.

The Superior Court of Justice granted judicial interim release, finding that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances, particularly given Cahill's HIV-positive status and chronic lung disease, which placed her at significant risk in detention.

The court determined that her proposed release plan, involving supervision by the John Howard Society and continuation of a methadone program, sufficiently mitigated the risks of non-attendance and reoffending, and that her release would not undermine confidence in the administration of justice.

The applicant sought an urgent interim injunction to prevent the respondent from evicting her from a commercial rental unit after the original hearing date was adjourned due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

At a case conference, the parties agreed to a timetable to prepare the application for adjudication.

On consent, the respondent agreed not to take any steps to evict the applicant while she complied with the timetable, rendering the motion for interim relief unnecessary.

The applicant, Awso Peshdary, facing terrorism charges, brought applications under s. 7 of the Charter and s. 38.14 of the Canada Evidence Act, seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence due to the destruction of notes by a key Crown witness (A.M.), a former CSIS human source.

As part of these applications, Peshdary sought disclosure of various CSIS documents, including policies on human source handling, drafts of an affidavit from a CSIS employee ('John'), and materials related to A.M.'s handler.

The court granted disclosure for CSIS policies related to human source safety and note-taking, finding them relevant to the Charter application concerning the right to make full answer and defence.

However, it denied disclosure for draft affidavits and handler-related materials, citing litigation privilege and lack of likely relevance, or prior Federal Court rulings on privilege.

The Applicant sought an urgent order for the sale of a jointly owned property and an amendment to her application, citing dire financial circumstances due to mortgage arrears and lack of income.

The Respondent opposed, arguing the matter was not urgent, the application was procedurally improper given a prior divorce, and that it constituted a malicious collateral attack.

The court found the matter urgent, applying the Thomas v. Wohleber test, noting the immediate risk of losing equity.

It permitted the amendment and ordered the sale of the property, rejecting the Respondent's procedural objections and finding no malicious conduct.

The Applicant was granted sole authority for the sale above a specified price, with the Respondent given a limited opportunity to purchase the property first.

A landlord sought leave to bring an urgent motion for directions to enforce an eviction order against tenants, despite a province-wide moratorium on evictions due to a public health emergency.

The Landlord and Tenant Board had previously ordered eviction based on a finding that a tenant committed a serious illegal act within the residential complex.

The court, acting as delegate of the Regional Senior Justice, found the matter urgent and granted leave for the landlord to bring the motion for directions, emphasizing the time-sensitive nature and potential interests of vulnerable third parties.

The defendants moved for security for costs against the plaintiff, Forvest Financial Services Corporation, an assignee of a claim from a Swiss corporation.

The motion was brought under Rule 56.01(1)(d), alleging Forvest had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs.

The court applied the two-stage test from Hallum and Yaiguaje, considering all evidence, including the plaintiff's own financial disclosures.

The Master found that Forvest's assets, primarily "advances to related parties," were sheltered from execution and insufficient.

While the plaintiff demonstrated a good case on the merits regarding misappropriation of funds, a critical credibility issue concerning a limitation period argument prevented a finding of "good chance of success." No unreasonable delay was found on the defendants' part.

The court ordered Forvest to post security for costs, reducing the quantum to exclude mediation costs due to the defendants' bad faith participation and costs related to their counterclaim.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion for the recusal of the case management judge, Kimmel J., alleging actual and perceived bias.

The grounds for recusal included a perceived racist attack by opposing counsel against the plaintiff Mr. Rogerson, the judge's alleged annoyance with the plaintiffs and their counsel, making orders beyond jurisdiction, and adopting an investigative role.

The judge dismissed the motion, finding no compelling evidence of actual bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court emphasized that subjective perceptions of bias are insufficient and that the high burden on the moving party to demonstrate a real likelihood of bias was not met.

The judge also noted that displeasure with a ruling or judicial admonishment for non-compliance does not constitute grounds for recusal, and that litigants are not entitled to choose their judge.

The respondent father brought an unserved 14B motion seeking sole custody, primary residence, child support, and section 7 payments from the applicant mother, and to stop his own child support obligation, citing urgency due to COVID-19 and wage loss.

The court, at the triage stage, dismissed the motion due to lack of service, insufficient information to determine urgency, absence of a proper Motion to Change, and lack of financial disclosure.

The court advised the respondent to obtain legal advice and re-file with proper materials and service.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 court suspension seeking validation of email service and an order preventing the applicant mother from moving the children outside St. Catharines.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, made a preliminary determination that the matter was urgent, citing the mother's stated intention to move the children to Kingston in April or May 2020.

The court validated service by email and set a deadline for the mother to file responding materials, referring the motion to another judge for a full hearing.

The applicant father sought urgent temporary sole custody of three children and an order for the return of one child, A.R.L.D., who the respondent mother unilaterally removed from the jurisdiction during a COVID-19 self-quarantine period.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, determined the matter was urgent due to concerns for the child's well-being and the need for police assistance, referring it for a full motion hearing and outlining procedural directions for service and future proceedings.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for the reinstatement of parenting time arrangements, alleging the respondent mother was denying access due to concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, reviewed the materials and determined that the motion was not urgent or an emergency under the Chief Justice's Notice regarding suspended court operations.

The court clarified that "urgent and emergency matters" in family law, particularly concerning the well-being of a child, were intended to mirror the language of the Hague Convention regarding wrongful removal or retention, and did not apply to general parenting time disputes.

The motion was dismissed, and the parties were encouraged to resolve the matter cooperatively.

The applicant mother sought the urgent return of her children to Florida under the Hague Convention, alleging wrongful removal and retention by the respondent father in Ontario.

Despite the children having been voluntarily returned to Florida by the father due to COVID-19 travel restrictions, the court deemed the matter urgent to formally establish habitual residence and wrongful retention, thereby enabling the Florida court to proceed with custody matters.

The court found the children's habitual residence to be Florida and that the father had wrongfully removed and retained them, issuing a final order for their return and the delivery of their Canadian passports to the mother.

The applicant sought a review of a detention order.

The court found material changes in circumstances due to a psychological report detailing the applicant's intellectual deficits and the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, the proposed release plan, including an unsuitable primary surety and insufficient details on electronic monitoring, failed to adequately address secondary and tertiary grounds for detention.

The court dismissed the bail review application, finding continued detention warranted to protect the public and maintain confidence in the administration of justice, despite the applicant's asthma making him vulnerable to COVID-19.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to enforce a prior parenting order, alleging the respondent mother was withholding their child in breach of the order, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted the urgent motion, emphasizing the need for child-focused behaviour and adherence to public health guidelines.

The court provided specific directions for the teleconference motion, including strict page limits for submissions and argument times, and deemed the directions an immediately operative order.

The responding party mother brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 court suspension seeking the return of the parties' child, a police enforcement order, and an order preventing the moving party father from taking the child to his cottage.

The dispute arose over the parenting schedule during school closures.

The triage judge found the matter was not urgent because it had become moot; the father agreed in his responding materials to return the child and revert to the existing court-ordered schedule.

The court declined to award costs to the father, noting he only disclosed his cottage address after the motion was brought and the motion was necessary to secure his compliance with the existing order.