SCJ 2020

Following his conviction for child luring, the applicant brought an entrapment application seeking a stay of proceedings.

The conviction arose from a police sting operation targeting individuals seeking juvenile prostitutes on an online classifieds website.

The court found that the police had a reasonable suspicion to investigate the virtual space and that the undercover officer introduced the poster's underage status early in the conversation, distinguishing the case from others where entrapment was found.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for the recovery of $45,000.

The individual defendant, an officer of a corporate client, withdrew the funds with only one signature, despite knowing the account required two signatures.

The bank mistakenly permitted the withdrawal and subsequently reimbursed the corporate client.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, holding that the individual defendant was not an innocent recipient and was unjustly enriched by the mistake of fact.

Summary judgment was granted for the principal amount plus interest, but the claim for punitive damages was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendant's jury notice in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs argued that the anticipated expert evidence was too complex for a jury and that the COVID-19 pandemic would cause undue delay.

The court dismissed the motion as premature, adopting a 'wait and see' approach, noting that the trial was not scheduled until September 2021 and the trial judge retains discretion to strike the jury if necessary.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that her home insurance policy was in effect when a fire destroyed her property, and claiming damages of $398,958.94.

The insurer had terminated the policy for non-payment of premiums months before the fire.

The fire was intentionally set by the plaintiff's husband, who was living at the property.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, concluding that the insurer properly terminated the policy according to its terms.

Furthermore, even if the policy had been in force, the intentional or criminal act exclusion would have barred coverage because the husband was an insured living in the household.

The plaintiff's claims for negligent misrepresentation and negligence were also dismissed.

The motion and action were dismissed.

Judge-alone criminal trial on allegations of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a child complainant who frequently stayed at a relative's home.

The central issue was credibility and reliability, with the court applying the W. (D.) framework to conflicting testimony from the complainant and the accused.

The court found aspects of the complainant's evidence compelling but identified significant inconsistencies and a possible motive to fabricate arising from being confronted about internet pornography searches.

Because the court was unable to decide whom to believe and was left with a reasonable doubt, the accused was acquitted on all counts.

The applicant and respondent, siblings and joint attorneys for property for their incapable mother, disputed the administration of their late father's estate.

The applicant sought to appoint CIBC Trust as Estate Trustee to administer the estate under a 1974 Will, which left the residue to their mother.

The respondent opposed, arguing their father had made a later will disinheriting their mother, and sought an order compelling an election under the Family Law Act to protect her interests.

The court found no evidence of a later will despite extensive searches, dismissed the respondent's motion, appointed CIBC Trust as Estate Trustee, and declared the 1974 Will valid.

Costs were awarded on a full indemnity basis, capped at $125,000, payable by the respondent, the estate, and the mother.

The plaintiffs purchased a helicopter and alleged they entered into a joint venture agreement with the defendants for its operation, based on four documents including a Letter of Intent.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the breach of contract claim, arguing the documents were merely an 'agreement to agree'.

The court granted the motion, finding that the documents lacked essential terms and that an Aircraft Management Agreement signed by the parties contained an 'entire agreement' clause that explicitly cancelled all prior representations and agreements.

The claim was dismissed in its entirety.

Following a family law trial with divided success, the applicant husband sought full indemnity costs of over $100,000, relying on pre-trial offers to settle.

The respondent wife sought no costs, arguing success was divided and citing her modest financial means.

The court found that while the husband's offers did not strictly comply with Rule 18(14), his pre-trial conduct was more resolution-oriented than the wife's.

Taking into account the divided success, the wife's unreasonable refusal to engage in settlement, and her limited ability to pay, the court ordered the wife to pay costs fixed at $12,000.

The parties, who were held hostage in Afghanistan for five years, are engaged in a high-conflict family law dispute.

The mother previously obtained an interim order allowing her to relocate to Pennsylvania with the children, but instead moved to Virginia and cut off all contact between the children and their father and paternal grandparents.

The father, having been acquitted of criminal charges related to alleged abuse, brought a motion to have the children returned to Ontario and for custody or access.

The paternal grandparents also sought access.

The court declined to order the immediate return of the children to Ontario on an interim basis due to conflicting evidence, but ordered supervised virtual access for the father and virtual access for the paternal grandparents.

The court also affirmed its jurisdiction over the parties' fourth child born in the US, and ordered a section 30 parenting assessment.

Sentencing for multiple child pornography offences, including making, possessing, making available, online communication to facilitate a child pornography offence, and breach of bail by possessing internet-capable devices.

The court applied proportionality, denunciation, deterrence, and totality principles, with substantial reliance on recent appellate guidance emphasizing the gravity of sexual offences against children and the role of technology in perpetuating abuse.

Aggravating features included a very large collection, the youth of the children depicted, surreptitious creation of images, real-time participatory conduct, and reoffending while on bail.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea, absence of prior record, remorse, and some rehabilitative prospects.

A global sentence of 4.5 years' incarceration was imposed with enhanced pre-sentence credit, probation, registry and prohibition orders, and forfeiture.

The offender pleaded guilty to possessing fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a four-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court noted the offender's lengthy criminal record and the significant amount of fentanyl involved, but also recognized his exceptional rehabilitative efforts and success in overcoming a long-standing drug addiction.

Applying recent appellate jurisprudence, the court found that returning the offender to jail would undermine his rehabilitation and serve little useful purpose.

A conditional sentence of two years less a day was imposed, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The plaintiff bank brought motions for an order amending the style of cause, summary judgment against one defendant, and default judgment against the other defendant.

The defendants had provided joint and several personal guarantees for corporate loans that went into default, leading to a receivership.

The court granted the amendment to the style of cause to include aliases.

The court granted summary judgment against the defending guarantor, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, and granted default judgment against the noted-in-default guarantor based on deemed admissions and affidavit evidence.

Judgment was granted for over $3 million plus full indemnity costs.

The applicant father brought a motion to set aside a temporary order that granted sole custody of the parties' child to the respondent mother, seeking to reinstate a prior shared parenting arrangement.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for a permanent order of sole custody.

Due to high conflict between the parents, the court interviewed the 12-year-old child, who expressed a preference to live with his mother and have discretionary weekend visits with his father.

Finding that joint custody was inappropriate given the parents' inability to communicate, the court dismissed the father's motion and granted sole custody to the mother, with specified parenting time for the father in accordance with the child's wishes.

The applicants sold a development property to the respondent.

The agreement of purchase and sale included a $2 million holdback in escrow to cover potential increases in parkland dedication requirements by the City of Toronto.

The applicants brought an application for a declaration that the conditions for the release of the holdback had been met, arguing that the City's new Official Plan Amendment did not specifically prescribe increased parkland requirements.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Official Plan Amendment adopted by the City was sufficient to trigger the holdback provisions under the plain meaning of the contract.

The Children's Aid Society brought a temporary care hearing concerning the placement of two young children who were taken to a place of safety after their mother passed away.

Two competing plans for permanent care were presented: one by the children's maternal aunt residing in Georgia, and another by a police officer who responded to the initial call and his spouse.

The Society supported the maternal aunt's plan.

The court evaluated both plans, finding them both to be of high quality.

Ultimately, the court determined that it was in the children's best interests to be placed in the temporary care and custody of their maternal aunt, emphasizing the statutory preference for placement with a relative and the familial continuity she could provide.

The applicant brought a motion to strike an affidavit sworn by his mother, one of the respondent trustees, on the basis that she was not produced for cross-examination due to concerns about her capacity.

The applicant argued that admitting the affidavit would prejudice the fair hearing of his application to remove the trustees and would be an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant had not availed himself of opportunities to cross-examine the affiant with accommodations or to seek court directions earlier.

The court held that the affidavit should be admitted, with the lack of cross-examination going to the weight of the evidence to be determined at the hearing.

The defendant insurer brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for insurance coverage after fish were contaminated by oil from an ice-making machine during processing.

The insurer relied on the 'Process Clause' and 'Fault in Preparation' exclusions in the all-risk policy.

The court dismissed the insurer's motion and granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, finding that the accidental contamination was a fortuitous event not intended as part of the processing or preparation, and therefore the exclusions did not apply.

Following a trial on a motion to change child and spousal support, both parties sought costs.

The court determined that the responding party (the original applicant) was the successful party, having successfully defended against the moving party's claims to drastically reduce his income for support purposes and terminate spousal support.

Comparing the final result to the various offers to settle, the court found the responding party's offers were reasonable while the moving party's offers were entirely unreasonable.

The court awarded the responding party partial indemnity costs fixed at $213,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, noting the complexity of the case and the moving party's conduct.

The applicant, charged with accessory after the fact to murder and arson, applied for judicial interim release under s. 522 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged the applicant drove the perpetrators to meet the victim, witnessed the kidnapping, and later assisted in burning the victim's vehicle and hiding the perpetrators.

The court found the proposed release plan involving the applicant's brother and sister-in-law as sureties was weak.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to discharge his onus on the primary (flight risk), secondary (substantial likelihood of re-offending), and tertiary (confidence in the administration of justice) grounds under s. 515(10).

The applicant brought a motion to prove a holograph will in solemn form and to be appointed Estate Trustee without an administration bond.

The deceased, who had terminal cancer, wrote a brief note in Farsi leaving his wealth to the applicant, his close friend and caregiver.

The court found the document to be a valid holograph will under section 6 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

However, the court dismissed the motion to dispense with the administration bond without prejudice, citing inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence regarding the value of the estate and its debts.