SCJ 2020

The Crown applied to vacate a Justice of the Peace's release order for the accused, Justin Sleeper, and sought his detention pending disposition of charges.

The application was based on new evidence of the accused's non-compliance with prior release conditions and alleged errors in law by the Justice of the Peace regarding the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention.

The court found the new evidence sufficient to vacate the release order and ordered the accused's detention, also concluding that the Justice of the Peace erred in assessing the tertiary grounds, particularly concerning the gravity of the offences involving drugs, firearms, and explosives.

The defendants in a solicitors' negligence action brought a motion to stay the proceeding pending payment of a prior costs order and for security for costs.

The court declined to stay the action over a disputed $240 interest claim.

However, the court granted the motion for security for costs, finding that the corporate plaintiff resided outside Ontario, had insufficient assets in the province, and failed to prove impecuniosity.

The plaintiff was ordered to post $15,000 as security for costs up to the completion of discoveries.

The plaintiffs brought a class action alleging that the defendant financial institutions breached their trust and fiduciary duties by failing to disclose markup fees charged on foreign currency conversions in registered accounts.

The parties brought cross-motions for summary judgment on the common issues, and the defendants moved for decertification.

The court found that the defendants breached the trust agreements by failing to disclose the amount of the markup fees.

The court ordered an accounting of profits to be determined at a reference, emphasizing the need to deter fiduciary misconduct.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for an elevated interest rate and punitive damages, and dismissed the defendants' motion to decertify the class action.

The parties delivered written submissions on costs following a trial regarding child support.

The respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $15,000, while the applicant sought full recovery costs of $39,900.78 or, alternatively, that each party bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found that no costs should be awarded for the period prior to a March 2018 consent order, as costs were not reserved.

Although the respondent was successful on the threshold issue of child support, the applicant was more settlement-focused and made reasonable offers to settle.

The court concluded that the presumption of costs to the successful party was rebutted and ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The applicant commenced an action for a constructive trust over a property owned by his deceased common-law spouse.

The respondent estate brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the application, arguing it was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period under the Trustee Act.

The applicant brought a cross-motion to add the estate beneficiaries as parties.

The court dismissed the estate's motion, finding that a claim for a constructive trust over real property is governed by the 10-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act, not the Trustee Act.

The court also dismissed the applicant's motion to add the beneficiaries, finding it unnecessary at this stage.

The plaintiff moved to correct a misnomer in his Statement of Claim by substituting 2090990 Ontario Inc. (Cezanne Homes) for the unnamed defendant 'XYZ Contracting Corporation'.

The plaintiff alleged that renovations at his neighbours' property caused structural damage to his own property.

The court found that the plaintiff intended to sue the contractor responsible for the renovations and that Cezanne Homes, upon reading the claim, would know it was the intended defendant.

The court allowed the substitution, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the proposed defendant.

The applicant and the respondent estate both brought motions under Rule 20(5) of the Family Law Rules to question a non-party lawyer who had advised the applicant on a marriage contract over 30 years ago.

The non-party opposed the questioning, suggesting written interrogatories instead.

The court found that the three-part test for questioning a non-party was met, as the lawyer's evidence was crucial to the validity of the marriage contract and could not be easily obtained by other methods.

Given the lawyer's advanced age and the importance of his evidence, the court also ordered that the questioning be recorded to preserve the evidence for trial, analogous to Rule 36 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant, charged with first degree murder alongside three co-defendants, applied for a separate trial.

He argued that a joint trial would be unfair because the Crown intended to adduce intercepted conversations involving his co-defendants that were inadmissible against him but potentially prejudicial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the intercepts did not directly incriminate the applicant and that any risk of prejudice could be managed through limiting instructions.

The court concluded that the pragmatic benefits of a joint trial outweighed the potential prejudice.

The accused was arrested without a warrant for drug trafficking following a confidential informant tip and several days of police surveillance.

Searches incident to arrest, including a strip search at the police station, yielded a loaded handgun, cash, and drugs.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of his ss. 8 and 9 rights, arguing the police lacked reasonable grounds for the arrest.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the totality of the circumstances, including the corroborated tip and surveillance observations, provided objectively reasonable grounds for the arrest and subsequent searches.

The Crown applied for an order of certiorari to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's decision discharging the accused on firearm possession charges.

The Crown argued the judge committed a jurisdictional error by failing to consider the whole of the evidence and by drawing an inference favourable to the accused.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding that while the preliminary inquiry judge made an error of law regarding the need for 'exclusive possession', it was not a jurisdictional error.

The judge's conclusion on the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence was within his jurisdiction and not reviewable by certiorari.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against a hospital and a former nurse who improperly accessed thousands of patient records to steal Percocet.

The defendants opposed certification and moved for summary judgment, arguing the privacy breach was fleeting and caused no compensable harm.

The court certified the class action for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, finding that even a minimal intrusion into highly private health records could be considered 'highly offensive'.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the negligence claim, as the plaintiffs suffered no actual compensable harm.

The plaintiff's motion to substitute a new representative plaintiff was also dismissed due to the proposed representative's unsuitability.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment of $581,787.01 obtained by the plaintiff in relation to a defaulted mortgage.

The court applied the test for setting aside a default judgment and found that while the defendants had no arguable defence regarding the $500,000 principal and accrued interest, they did have an arguable defence regarding the penalties, charges, and costs awarded.

The court partially granted the motion, upholding the judgment for the principal and interest but setting aside the portion relating to penalties, charges, and costs.

The children's aid society sought extended society care for three young children and a custody order to a grandmother for the oldest child.

The parents opposed the orders, seeking the return of all four children to their care.

The court found the children were in need of protection due to the parents' history of substance abuse, domestic conflict, and inability to meet the children's developmental and medical needs.

The court concluded that returning the children to the parents was not a viable option and that the society's proposed plan was in the children's best interests.

The oldest child was placed in the custody of his grandmother, and the three younger children were placed in extended society care with limited parental access.

The applicant mortgagee sought a declaration for immediate vacant possession of a property following an alleged default.

The respondents argued that an oral agreement existed waiving mortgage payments until a quarry on the property was operational, raising significant credibility issues.

The court agreed with the respondents that the factual disputes could not be resolved on a paper record and ordered the application converted into an action pursuant to Rule 38.10(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff construction company brought an action for unpaid invoices relating to the construction of cottages under cost-plus contracts.

The defendant developer argued that the costs exceeded the budgets and were not properly approved or invoiced.

The court found that the defendant was aware of and approved the extra work, which was necessitated by site conditions, and that the plaintiff had properly invoiced the amounts.

The court awarded the plaintiff the full amount claimed, plus contractual interest.

In a historic sexual abuse prosecution, the court considered allegations by two sisters that their step-father sexually assaulted them over a period of years, including repeated vaginal intercourse with one complainant beginning when she was 11 or 12 years old.

Applying the W.(D.) framework in a credibility-centred trial, the court accepted the complainants' evidence despite the passage of time and rejected the accused's blanket denial.

The court found timely disclosures, corroborative surrounding circumstances, and detailed recollection sufficient to establish the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

Findings of guilt were entered on all four counts, with further submissions invited on the rule against multiple convictions.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment on the liability common issues in a class action for unpaid overtime on behalf of customer service employees of the defendant bank.

The court found that the bank's overtime policies, which required pre-approval, and its failure to record actual hours worked, violated the Canada Labour Code.

The court concluded that the bank permitted uncompensated overtime by failing to prevent it, thereby breaching its statutory and contractual duties to the class members.

In an ongoing estate litigation matter, the court determined costs for several preliminary steps, including the determination of an estate asset, production of solicitor files, an abandoned consolidation motion, and case management conferences.

The court awarded costs to the applicant and other beneficiaries, payable largely by the former estate trustees personally due to their improper conduct and conflicts of interest, with some portions payable by the estate.

The Crown appealed a directed verdict of acquittal for a charge of failing or refusing to comply with a breath demand.

The trial judge had found that the breathalyzer technician lacked objective reasonable and probable grounds to make the demand because there was no evidence of what the roadside approved screening device (ASD) fail meant.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in law by failing to consider all reasonable inferences, specifically that an experienced officer could reasonably rely on an ASD fail result to form objective grounds.

A new trial was ordered.

Following a successful motion to enforce zoning bylaws and property rights, the plaintiff municipality sought costs.

The defendants argued the motion was unnecessary and sought their own costs.

The court found the plaintiff acted properly in bringing the motion in the public interest and was entitled to costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs and costs thrown away, totalling $71,220.90.