SCJ 2020

Following motions for exclusive possession, parenting, and support, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $35,000, while the respondent argued no costs should be awarded due to divided success.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party overall, having succeeded on exclusive possession and the choice of assessor, though success was divided on parenting and support.

Accounting for the divided success and an unnecessary first attendance, the court awarded the applicant costs of $12,000.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action.

The plaintiff had previously sued the defendants for breach of contract through his corporation, which was dismissed on summary judgment and upheld on appeal.

The court found that the defamation action was an attempt to relitigate the same material facts and issues decided in the prior action.

Applying the doctrine of issue estoppel, the court granted the motion and dismissed the action, awarding costs to the defendants.

The applicant brought a motion for a final order noting the respondent in default and seeking relief on parenting, child support, and property division.

The respondent had failed to comply with previous orders to file materials.

The court refused to grant further extensions and proceeded with the motion.

The court made a temporary order for unsupervised access, ordered the respondent to pay retroactive and ongoing child support in accordance with the Guidelines (rejecting his unpled undue hardship claim), enforced a trust agreement regarding the sale proceeds of their home, and ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant for half of the payments she made on a joint loan.

The applicant was awarded $20,000 in costs.

The plaintiff landlord sued the defendant tenants for unpaid rent and property taxes under a commercial lease for a golf driving range.

The defendants counterclaimed, alleging the landlord breached an oral agreement to finance and build a year-round deck structure, and breached the duty of good faith by orchestrating their default.

The court found that the parol evidence rule did not bar consideration of unsigned collateral agreements, but concluded the evidence did not support the defendants' claim that the landlord promised to pay for the deck.

The counterclaim was dismissed, and the plaintiff was awarded $63,000 for unpaid rent and taxes.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce Minutes of Settlement regarding her late parents' estates.

The parties disputed the valuation date for real estate joint ventures and corporate shares used to fund a $4.9 million preference payment to the applicant.

The applicant argued for 2010 valuations, which would grant her the subsequent appreciation in value, while the respondent argued for current valuations.

The court held that, based on an objective interpretation of the settlement and the general rule for estate distributions, the assets must be valued at a date proximate to their distribution.

The applicants, the estranged wife and daughter of the respondent, brought an application for an oppression remedy under the Business Corporations Act, seeking to remove the respondent from the family's chemical business and force him to sell his shares to them.

The respondent brought a counter-application seeking the reverse.

The court found that the relationship between the parties had irreparably broken down, resulting in a corporate deadlock.

Applying section 207 of the Act, the court ordered the respondent, who was the founder and primary manager of the business, to buy out the applicants' shares at fair market value, as this aligned with the parties' reasonable expectations.

The applicant brought a private prosecution against his wife's employer and her superiors, alleging criminal harassment, obstruction of justice, intimidation, and retaliation.

Following a pre-enquete hearing, the Justice of the Peace refused to issue process on six counts due to insufficient evidence, and the Crown Attorney stayed the remaining count.

The applicant sought certiorari and mandamus to quash the refusal and review the stay.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding no jurisdictional error by the Justice of the Peace and confirming the Crown Attorney's absolute discretion to stay the charge.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted murder for attacking his 8-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter with a hammer.

The attacks occurred during a scheduled access visit following a marital separation.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the domestic context and the extreme breach of parental trust.

The accused was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment, reduced to 11 years after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh lockdown conditions.

During a jury trial for importing cocaine, the Crown objected to the defence counsel's reference to 'blind couriers' in their closing address, arguing there was no evidence of their existence.

The trial judge declined to instruct the jury to ignore the remark, finding it was a permissible submission that a person could import a substance without knowledge.

The judge noted that in a circumstantial case, inferences consistent with innocence do not require proven facts, and the agreed statement of facts already implied the existence of blind couriers.

The defendants were jointly charged with trafficking in various drugs and possession of proceeds of crime after police executed a search warrant at their rural hobby farm.

Police found over $800,000 worth of drugs and $82,000 in cash buried in a drive shed, along with packaging materials and scales in the main residence.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including matching containers found in the residence and the drive shed, established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants had constructive and joint possession of the drugs and currency.

The defendants were found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The defendant brought unsuccessful motions for a writ of possession and interim preservation of property.

The plaintiff sought costs of the motions on a partial indemnity basis.

The court fixed the plaintiff's partial indemnity costs at $4,709.73 but ordered that they be payable in the cause, as the issue of possession was the central issue to be determined at trial.

The parties were involved in a dispute over the estate of the deceased, who allegedly died intestate.

The applicant sought the appointment of an Estate Trustee Without a Will and an advance from the estate, while the respondents sought the appointment of an Estate Trustee During Litigation and directions regarding estate properties.

The court consolidated the two applications, appointed an Estate Trustee During Litigation to administer the estate pending the resolution of the dispute, deferred the request for an advance, and authorized the payment of outstanding property taxes on estate properties.

The Crown brought a pretrial application to admit lay opinion evidence from a border services officer that the accused's empty small suitcase felt abnormally or unusually heavy.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the officer lacked the necessary experiential capacity to form the opinion due to his inexperience.

Alternatively, the court held that the evidence's prejudicial effect outweighed its limited probative value, as the jury might unreasonably rely on it to infer the accused's knowledge of the cocaine.

The plaintiffs moved for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a mortgage held by the defendant on a property sold to a third party.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was overpaid upon the discharge of prior mortgages and claimed a trust interest in the new mortgage.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while a claim to a mortgage may constitute an interest in land, the equities weighed heavily against granting a CPL due to the plaintiffs' significant delay, prior acknowledgments of the debt, and inability to satisfy a potential damages award.

This application and counter-application concerned ownership of a 95-acre scout camp property acquired through historical transfers dating back to 1960.

The court held that the unincorporated association lacked legal capacity to be either settlor or beneficiary of a private trust and therefore could not claim a beneficial or proprietary interest in the land.

Applying trust principles, the court found the 1960 conveyance created a valid charitable purpose trust for the promotion of youth welfare through scouting, but held that the 1983 transfer vested absolute legal title in the respondent incorporated body.

In the alternative, the court held that, if absolute title had not passed, the charitable purpose trust continued.

The application was dismissed and the counter-application was allowed in part.

The offender was convicted by a jury of importing 203.5 grams of heroin, conspiracy to import, and possession for the purpose of trafficking, and pled guilty to using a forged document.

The court found the offender was a mere courier motivated by financial need to support his family, and that he knew the imported substance was heroin.

Weighing the significant mitigating factors, including his status as a first-time offender with strong community support, against the aggravating nature of heroin, the court sentenced the offender to 5 years' imprisonment.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial for sexual assault, the court assessed sharply conflicting accounts of a sexual encounter at the accused's home.

Applying the W. (D.) framework and the Supreme Court's communicative consent jurisprudence, the court found the complainant credible and reliable on the core allegation that she did not consent and had said she did not want sex.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, including his claim that his arm injury made the assault physically impossible, and held that even on his version there was no affirmative communication of consent.

The court further found that any asserted belief in consent was unavailable because no reasonable steps were taken to ascertain it.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

The plaintiff sought costs of $89,304.86 on a partial indemnity basis following a successful motion for declaratory relief regarding an easement over the defendant's property.

The defendant argued for each party to bear its own costs due to divided success, or alternatively, a reduced amount.

The court rejected the divided success argument, finding the plaintiff was the successful party, but reduced the costs award to $45,000 all inclusive, finding the plaintiff's claim excessive and noting the abandoned claim against the municipality.

The plaintiff commenced a proposed class action against his former employer for alleged failure to pay overtime, alongside a personal wrongful dismissal action.

After settling his personal action and determining that the employer had largely fulfilled its overtime obligations, the plaintiff brought a consent motion to discontinue the proposed class action without costs.

The court granted the motion, finding no prejudice to putative class members who were unaware of the action.

The plaintiffs, international students, brought a class action against Niagara College alleging misrepresentations regarding the eligibility of its General Arts and Science Program for a three-year Post-Graduation Work Permit.

The parties reached a $3 million settlement.

The court certified the action for settlement purposes, approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, approved class counsel fees of $950,750, and awarded a $10,000 honorarium to each representative plaintiff.