SCJ 2020

The applicant sought costs of $34,160 on a full recovery basis against a third-party witness who unsuccessfully opposed a motion to be questioned prior to trial.

The third party argued he was a non-party and sought his own costs.

The court found the third party was a party for the purposes of the motion under the Family Law Rules and that the applicant was the successful party.

Applying principles of proportionality and considering the respective offers to settle, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $10,000.

The applicant father brought an urgent interim motion to prevent the respondent mother from relocating with their eight-year-old child from Windsor to Edmonton.

The mother sought to move to pursue a policing career and live with her new partner.

Applying the test for interim mobility, the court found genuine issues for trial regarding the child's best interests and no compelling circumstances to justify an immediate move, particularly given the uncertainties of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court ordered the child to remain in Essex County pending an expedited trial.

The plaintiff, a party under disability, commenced an action against the bank defendants for alleged mismanagement of funds.

Three interrelated motions were heard: the plaintiff's motion for default judgment, the defendants' motion to set aside the noting of default, and the defendants' motion to strike out the claim on grounds of *res judicata* or abuse of process.

The court found that the noting of default was improperly obtained and should be set aside, dismissing the plaintiff's motion for default judgment.

The court granted the defendants' motion to strike the claim, finding that both branches of *res judicata* (cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel) applied, and that allowing the action to proceed would constitute an abuse of process, given the prior dismissal of a similar application and appeal as statute-barred.

The claim was struck without leave to amend, and costs were awarded to the defendants.

This endorsement addresses a procedural case conference concerning ongoing litigation between separated spouses.

The applicant, Mr. Hrvoic, initiated an application for Ms. Hrvoic to sell her shares in a family business.

Following Mr. Hrvoic's termination of Ms. Hrvoic's employment, Ms. Hrvoic "borrowed" $600,000 from a line of credit.

Dow J. subsequently ordered Ms. Hrvoic to repay $500,000 of this amount.

Ms. Hrvoic now seeks leave to appeal this term and an urgent stay pending appeal.

The court noted the parties' contentious approach and set a schedule for the motion for a stay pending appeal, declining to grant an interim stay.

J.S. brought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained on reverse onus charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking and firearm offences.

The court found material changes in circumstances, including new sureties (father and godfather) addressing previous concerns about the mother's health, and the elevated risk posed by the COVID-19 pandemic in detention facilities.

Considering the proposed strict house arrest plan, the applicant's lack of criminal record, and the overall circumstances, the court determined that release would not undermine public confidence in the administration of justice on the tertiary ground.

The bail review was granted, and J.S. was released on a $15,000 surety recognizance with strict conditions.

Following a motion to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery, both parties sought costs.

The defendants had breached a consent timetable order by failing to answer undertakings for over 17 months, only providing answers in their responding materials.

The Master awarded the plaintiff $2,000 in costs, noting the motion was necessary to compel the undertakings and the defendants provided no satisfactory explanation for their delay.

This decision addresses the costs of motions previously heard, where Rakhi Kalia's motion to dismiss the action or disqualify counsel was largely dismissed, and Adarsh Kalia's cross-motion for a timetable and case management was granted.

The late Mrs. Kalia's estate sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, alleging Rakhi Kalia's delaying tactics.

The court found that while Rakhi Kalia's unsuccessful motion delayed the action, her conduct was not reprehensible enough to warrant substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis to Mrs. Kalia's estate in the amount of $13,500.00, all inclusive.

The accused, T.B., applied for a stay of serious criminal charges, alleging a breach of their s. 7 Charter right to security of the person due to state action.

The court found that police deliberately breached T.B.'s confidential informant privilege by showing a recorded interview, where T.B. implicated other criminals, to a criminal associate (Mr./Ms. X).

This disclosure led to T.B. being severely assaulted in jail.

The court determined this police conduct constituted an abuse of process, offensive to societal notions of fair play and decency, and that no lesser remedy could adequately dissociate the justice system from the egregious conduct.

Consequently, a stay of all proceedings against T.B. was granted.

The defendant appealed a master's order granting the plaintiffs leave to amend their statement of claim to include a breach of an earlier manufacturing agreement, after the expiry of the limitation period.

The central issue was whether the proposed amendment constituted a new cause of action.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the master's decision that the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action, as it arose from the same factual matrix and alleged breaches, and the defendant had notice of the underlying facts.

The court affirmed that the "clean hands" doctrine is not applicable to limitation period analyses and that the tenability of amendments is assessed by assuming pleaded facts are true, deferring substantive merits to trial or summary judgment.

The respondent moved for a stay pending leave to appeal an adjournment order by Dow J., which required her to repay $500,000 of $600,000 drawn on a line of credit.

The court expressed concerns about the meta-motions, the connection to family law proceedings, the likelihood of obtaining leave to appeal a discretionary order, and the potential for the respondent to consume the funds.

The court decided to convene a case conference to discuss process issues for the urgent application, inviting family law counsel, and noted that a judge might be designated to ensure efficient handling.

The accused, Gaston Nicholas, was found guilty of two counts of arson.

At sentencing, the Crown sought a 12-month reformatory sentence, while the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation, citing the accused's advanced age, poor physical and mental health (including vascular dementia and depression), and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found a causal link between the accused's mental health and the offences, and concluded that incarceration would have a severe negative effect on him due to his vulnerabilities and the pandemic conditions in correctional institutions.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with three years probation and a 10-year weapons prohibition, declining a DNA order.

The applicants sought certiorari to quash a Justice of the Peace's decision asserting jurisdiction over s. 810 Criminal Code peace bond applications based on alleged misconduct in Greece, and alternatively, for insufficient particularization of the location of the alleged misconduct.

The court dismissed the applications, holding that Canadian courts have jurisdiction to issue s. 810 peace bonds to prevent future harm in Canada, even if the underlying conduct occurred abroad, as the purpose is preventive, not punitive.

The court also found that the particulars provided were sufficient for fairness in a peace bond context, distinguishing it from criminal prosecutions.

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought relief from forfeiture and return of leased premises.

The respondent landlord requested an adjournment, which was granted by the court.

The adjournment was primarily due to the lack of notice to a third-party tenant in possession and the need for potential further evidence regarding a contentious lease amending agreement.

The court set specific terms for the adjournment, including notification of the third party and a timetable for outstanding materials.

This case involved a married couple separating after 10 years, with two children.

The primary issues at trial were parenting time and decision-making, equalization of net family property, the treatment of Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) for support and property calculations, child support, and spousal support.

The court granted joint custody, with the children primarily residing with the Respondent, and established a detailed four-week parenting schedule.

The Applicant was awarded an equalization payment and ongoing spousal support.

The court also clarified how RSUs should be treated for child versus spousal support calculations, distinguishing between income and property.

The applicant sought an urgent order from the Superior Court of Justice to set aside a Small Claims Court default judgment and a writ of execution, which was impeding the imminent sale of her property.

The applicant, the respondent's former daughter-in-law, alleged the judgment was obtained without notice to punish her for divorce.

The court noted its uncertain jurisdiction over Small Claims judgments but acknowledged the urgency due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the impending property sale.

The court encouraged settlement, suggesting the sale proceeds be held in trust, and failing settlement, designated another judge to hear the urgent application the following day, providing specific procedural directions for electronic filing and service.

The applicant sought an order extending the limitation period for her equalization claim under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act.

The court found that the applicant had prima facie grounds for relief, that her delay was incurred in good faith due to honest confusion about the limitation date and modest means, and that the respondent would not suffer substantial prejudice.

The motion was granted, extending the limitation period to February 12, 2020, the date the application was issued.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs of the motion.

The judgment creditor sought urgent relief to prevent the judgment debtors from continuing to ignore court orders and to repay funds allegedly obtained by fraud.

The court found the matter urgent under the Chief Justice's COVID-19 Notice to the Profession and scheduled a telephone case conference, providing procedural directions for electronic service and filing.

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought urgent relief from lease forfeiture by the respondent landlord.

This endorsement scheduled an urgent application hearing and provided comprehensive procedural directions for electronic filing, email service, and remote hearing arrangements, designating a specific justice to preside over the matter.

This class action concerned defective Medtronic Sprint Fidelis leads for implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

The plaintiffs moved for approval of a $26 million settlement, class counsel fees, and honoraria for representative plaintiffs.

The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting arm's-length bargaining and comprehensive investigation.

Class counsel's request for 30% contingency fees and disbursements was approved, upholding the strong presumption of validity for such agreements given the litigation's complexity and risks.

However, the request for honoraria for the representative plaintiffs was dismissed, as no exceptional circumstances or contributions beyond expected involvement were demonstrated.

The plaintiffs sought court approval of a class action settlement agreement concerning allegedly defective Medtronic defibrillators, approval of class counsel fees and disbursements, and honoraria for representative plaintiffs.

The court approved the settlement and class counsel fees, finding the settlement fair and reasonable given the litigation risks and lack of reported injuries.

However, the request for honoraria for representative plaintiffs was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of exceptional contributions beyond typical representative plaintiff duties.