SCJ 2020

The plaintiff was assaulted by two unknown individuals in the stairwell of a municipal parking garage.

He sued the city and its contracted security company for negligence and breach of the Occupiers' Liability Act, alleging inadequate security measures.

The court found that both defendants owed a duty of care and breached it by failing to conduct threat/risk assessments, install video cameras in stairwells, or implement adequate security patrols.

However, the action was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove causation; the assault lasted only 30 seconds, meaning it could not have been prevented even if proper security measures had been in place.

The estate trustee brought an application for directions regarding a will that granted the respondent a 'home' for his 'lifetime' or until he was 'no longer living' there.

The court had to determine whether the will granted a life estate or a licence, and whether the condition of 'no longer living' in the home was void for uncertainty.

The court found that the will granted a licence to occupy the home, not a life estate.

Furthermore, the condition subsequent 'no longer living' was found to be void for uncertainty.

Because the interest was a licence, the failure of the condition subsequent caused the entire gift to fail, and the property was ordered to be sold with proceeds going to the residual charity beneficiary.

The plaintiff brought an urgent, without-notice motion for a Mareva injunction against the defendant, alleging fraud and breach of trust regarding funds advanced for a foreign property investment.

The plaintiff sought to preserve the net sale proceeds of the defendant's Ontario property, which was scheduled to close on the day of the hearing.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, a serious risk of dissipation of assets, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The court granted an interim Mareva injunction preserving up to $327,000 of the net sale proceeds for eight days, with the remainder of the motion adjourned.

The accused was tried on sexual assault and sexual touching counts involving two 15-year-old complainants arising from separate incidents at the same apartment during the same summer.

The court admitted the evidence of each complainant as similar fact evidence on the other counts, applying the Handy framework and finding substantial similarities, strong probative value, and no air of reality to allegations of collusion.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused’s testimony as incredible and found both complainants credible, internally consistent, and corroborated by surrounding evidence, including expert medical evidence respecting healed genital injury to one complainant.

Convictions were entered on all remaining counts.

The plaintiff brought an urgent, without-notice motion for a Mareva injunction to freeze the proceeds of a real estate sale scheduled to close the same day.

The court declined to proceed without notice, finding that the plaintiff had already threatened the defendant with the motion and had the ability to serve him.

The court recessed the motion until the afternoon to allow the plaintiff to provide notice to the defendant.

Following a successful urgent motion under the Hague Convention for the return of a child to Missouri, the applicant father sought full recovery costs of $18,929.20.

The court found that the respondent mother acted in bad faith and unreasonably by making unsubstantiated allegations of abuse, failing to return the child, and absconding with the child after the initial order.

The court awarded costs approaching full recovery, fixed at $15,000, and ordered the costs to be enforceable as support by the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant target company sought specific performance of a share purchase agreement after the respondent purchaser refused to close, citing the COVID-19 pandemic.

The purchaser alleged breaches of the Material Adverse Effect (MAE), ordinary course, amortization event, and access to information covenants.

The court found that while the pandemic threatened earnings, it fell within the MAE's emergency carveout and did not disproportionately affect the target.

The target's pandemic responses, including branch access changes and accounting adjustments, were within the ordinary course of business for an economic downturn.

The court ordered specific performance of the agreement.

The offender was found guilty of manslaughter by a jury after stabbing the victim multiple times during a physical altercation over drugs.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the use of a knife and the drug context, against mitigating factors such as the offender's youth, remorse, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of 6 years and 9 months before credit, reducing it by 3 months for the collateral consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, and granted enhanced credit for time spent in lockdown.

The applicant pled guilty to drug trafficking offences but sought a stay of two counts of cocaine trafficking, alleging entrapment.

He argued police lacked reasonable suspicion that he was trafficking cocaine before providing him the opportunity to sell it to an undercover officer.

The court dismissed the application, finding that police had formed the requisite reasonable suspicion based on reliable confidential informant tips, extensive surveillance, and the applicant's own statements to the undercover officer prior to the drug transaction.

The applicant sought a review of his detention order on charges including possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the proposal of new, closer sureties and the resolution of numerous outstanding breach charges.

Applying the principles from R. v. Zora, the court considered the applicant's history of bail breaches in the context of his drug addiction.

The court concluded that a strict house arrest plan with electronic monitoring and substantial sureties adequately addressed the secondary and tertiary grounds, and granted the applicant's release.

The plaintiffs, owners of single-family homes, leased their properties to the defendant who fraudulently converted them into illegal rooming houses.

After the defendant failed to comply with a previous court order to restore the properties to single-family dwellings, the plaintiffs brought a motion for contempt and a writ of possession.

The court found the defendant in civil contempt, granted the plaintiffs exclusive possession under its inherent jurisdiction to enforce its orders, and ordered the defendant to pay $36,000 in restitution or face a 120-day jail sentence.

The court sentenced the accused for incest and sexual assault against his daughter, committed over approximately five years beginning when the complainant was 16.

Applying the sentencing principles for sexual offences against children, including the primacy of denunciation and deterrence under s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code and the guidance in Friesen, the court treated the prolonged abuse, parental breach of trust, grooming, vulnerability, and resulting pregnancy as major aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included the accused’s lack of criminal record, pro-social history, low apparent risk of reoffending, absence of violence, and advanced age.

A penitentiary sentence of 10 years on the incest count and 7 years concurrent on the sexual assault count was imposed, together with ancillary orders.

The applicant tenant brought an application for the interpretation of a commercial lease to determine responsibility for property taxes, utility arrears, renovation expenses, and management fees.

The court found that the lease unambiguously made the landlord responsible for property taxes.

The court also held the landlord responsible for utility arrears incurred prior to the lease that were necessary to maintain service.

However, the tenant was found responsible for renovation costs, as well as the landlord's reasonable legal and management fees.

The plaintiffs moved to certify a class action against the Government of Ontario for damages resulting from the early termination of the Ontario Basic Income Pilot project.

The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract, breach of undertaking, negligence, breach of public law duty, and breach of section 7 of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the certification motion, finding it plain and obvious that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the relationship was not contractual, the government's decision to cancel the program was a core policy decision protected by common law and statutory immunity, and there is no constitutional right to the continuation of a government program.

Following a long motion regarding temporary parenting, support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, both parties sought costs.

The court found the respondent wife was largely successful, having obtained primary residence, exclusive possession, and temporary support.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, noting the wife's offers were closer to the final order.

The court also found the applicant husband acted unreasonably by refusing to vacate the matrimonial home despite having alternative accommodation.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $19,200 in costs.

The offender pled guilty to historical indecent assault committed against a 12-year-old boy between 1968 and 1973.

The court determined that a conditional sentence was legally available because the corresponding modern offence of sexual interference did not statutorily bar it.

However, applying the principles from Friesen, the court found a conditional sentence inappropriate given the need for denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children.

The offender was sentenced to 9 months in custody followed by 12 months of probation.

During the damages phase of a trial concerning institutional abuse, the defendants moved to exclude the expert testimony of the plaintiff's treating psychologist, arguing her long-term therapeutic relationship compromised her objectivity.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the expert's changing opinions over time were reasonably explained by her subsequent review of the plaintiff's clinical records from the institution, rather than an assumption of an advocacy role.

The court held that the expert maintained the requisite independence and objectivity to assist the court.

The applicants, members of the Carpenters Union, brought an application alleging that a municipal councillor breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by voting on a resolution supporting provincial labour law amendments.

The councillor's wife was employed by a rival union, CLAC.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants failed to prove they brought the application within the six-week limitation period.

Furthermore, the court held that the councillor did not have a deemed indirect pecuniary interest because the resolution was merely a symbolic show of support over which the municipality had no jurisdiction, and any potential interest was too remote, hypothetical, and insignificant to influence his vote.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, applied for an order committing the respondent into custody pending a decision on his extradition.

The United States sought the respondent for allegedly preparing fraudulent asylum applications and providing false identification documents.

The court found that the double-criminality requirement was met, as the alleged conduct would constitute counselling misrepresentation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act if committed in Canada.

The court also dismissed the respondent's arguments regarding identity, finding sufficient evidence that the respondent was the person sought.

The committal order was granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking $84,725.09 to reconcile a final profit split under a magazine publishing agreement that ended mid-year in 2019.

The agreement required the defendant to provide a minimum of $150,000 in advertising revenue annually, with the first $150,000 of net profit paid to the defendant reflecting this contribution.

Because only one edition was published in 2019, the defendant contributed only $62,625 in ad revenue but argued it was still entitled to the full $150,000 profit priority.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation and found that the profit priority was linked to the actual ad revenue contributed.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff.