SCJ 2020

The accused applied for judicial interim release after being charged with firearms and drug offences while already on bail for similar charges.

The accused proposed a new release plan involving house arrest, a GPS ankle bracelet, and his girlfriend as a surety.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the accused had previously breached his bail conditions flagrantly and had shown a lack of respect for the proposed surety by taking her car without her knowledge.

The court concluded that GPS monitoring is reactionary and insufficient to prevent further offences, justifying detention on the secondary ground.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order placing her in the custody of her maternal aunt.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing that a trial was required, while the father and the child consented.

The court found that the mother had experienced a severe mental health breakdown requiring extended hospitalization, which profoundly affected the child.

Applying the principles for summary judgment in child protection cases, the court determined there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court found the child in need of protection and, giving significant weight to the child's steadfast wish to live with her aunt, granted custody to the maternal aunt as being in the child's best interests.

Following a successful motion for primary residence of the parties' children, the applicant sought full recovery costs of $13,882.05 based on an offer to settle and the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.

The court found the offer to settle was not severable and therefore did not attract full recovery costs under Rule 18.

While the respondent exhibited some unreasonable behaviour, it did not amount to bad faith.

Considering the respondent's impecuniosity and the principle of proportionality, the court awarded the applicant partial recovery costs fixed at $5,000, payable in monthly installments.

The accused applied for release from custody under a section 525 bail detention review.

He had been detained on secondary grounds and proposed a release plan without a surety, relying on community services and his own good intentions.

The court found the plan insufficient to address the secondary ground concerns given the accused's lengthy criminal record and history of breaching court orders.

The application for release was dismissed.

The children's aid society brought a motion within a status review application to vacate a previous statutory finding that a child in extended society care was not a First Nations child.

The society sought a new finding that the child is a First Nations child based on new evidence of the paternal aunt's self-identification as Indigenous.

The foster parents and maternal grandfather opposed the motion, arguing the previous finding could not be varied.

The court held that a child's identity is fluid and can be revisited on a status review application if new evidence arises and it is in the child's best interests.

The court accepted the paternal aunt's self-identification and declared the child a First Nations child under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for extended society care with no access for a two-year-old child.

The parents, who both have developmental delays, opposed the motion and sought the return of the child with a supervision order.

The court found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the parents lacked the capacity to parent independently and did not have adequate 24/7 supports in place.

The court granted summary judgment placing the child in extended society care, but ordered that the parents have access at the discretion of the society, finding that access was positive and in the child's best interests.

The applicant, sought by the United States for money laundering and operating an un-licenced money transfer business, applied for bail pending extradition.

The applicant bore the onus under s. 515(6)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet his onus on both the primary and secondary grounds.

The court found the applicant posed a significant flight risk, had a history of using false documents, and proposed an inadequate release plan with unsuitable sureties and insufficient supervision to prevent reoffending.

The plaintiff commenced an action claiming beneficial ownership of two properties and seeking restitution for mortgage arrears it paid to stay writs of possession.

The defendant mortgagees moved for summary judgment to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim and to strike the claim regarding Interest Act violations.

The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issue for trial on unjust enrichment because the plaintiff suffered no deprivation and a prior court order provided a juristic reason for the payments.

The court also struck the Interest Act claim as an abuse of process because it was already being litigated in another proceeding.

In a pre-trial ruling for a second-degree murder case, the court determined the appropriate jury selection procedure following the enactment of Bill C-75, which abolished peremptory challenges.

The defence proposed combining the challenge for cause and stand-aside inquiries.

The court rejected a combined approach but permitted a limited expansion of the challenge for cause questions.

The court established a procedure where, after the challenge for cause, a specific question is asked to assess juror competence, allowing counsel to make submissions on whether the judge should exercise the enhanced stand-aside power under s. 633 of the Criminal Code to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking joint custody and increased parenting time, including overnight visits, with the parties' infant child.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, arguing that the father was incapable of caring for the child and that overnight visits would disrupt the child's breastfeeding schedule.

The court found that the mother's resistance was punitive and that the child's best interests required fostering a relationship with the father.

The court ordered an interim schedule granting the father one day visit and one overnight visit per week, but declined to order joint custody at this stage.

The applicants, federal inmates, applied for habeas corpus seeking transfers to minimum-security institutions.

The respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to summarily dismiss the applications as frivolous, arguing that a refusal to transfer to a lower security classification does not constitute a deprivation of liberty.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that jurisprudence is divided on whether such a refusal amounts to a deprivation of liberty, and therefore the applications were not clearly frivolous or abusive on their face.

The accused appeared for a 90-day bail review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

He faced multiple sets of charges, primarily relating to committing indecent acts by masturbating in public, including in the presence of children, as well as breaching probation and bail conditions.

The accused had a significant criminal record and severe mental health issues, with a psychiatric assessment indicating a moderate-high risk of violent and sexual recidivism.

The court found that while the accused required mental health treatment, his escalating behaviour and the lack of a viable supervision plan meant his continued detention was necessary for the protection and safety of the public under the secondary ground.

The accused's detention was ordered to continue.

The moving party brought motions to declare the plaintiffs' construction liens expired under the Construction Lien Act.

The substantive relief was granted on consent.

The only remaining issue was costs.

The court declined to award costs to the moving party, finding that its counsel had engaged in sharp practice by failing to respond to correspondence from opposing counsel that revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of the statutory deadlines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court held that correcting this clear mistake would not have sacrificed the client's rights and that the motions could have been brought ex parte or in writing.

Following a successful motion for contempt against the applicant mother for unilaterally withholding the children, the respondent father sought substantial indemnity costs of $18,429.17.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, noting the mother's unreasonable behaviour and failure to accept reasonable offers to settle.

The court awarded the father costs fixed at $11,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The respondent father brought a motion for contempt against the applicant mother for failing to return their two children to Ontario from British Columbia following her March Break access.

The mother claimed she withheld the children due to COVID-19 travel risks and the child's asthma.

The court found the mother intentionally breached a clear court order, noting she had unilaterally decided to keep the children despite no evidence of travel restrictions preventing their return.

The mother was found in contempt, and the court ordered temporary adjustments to the parenting schedule to facilitate the children's return and make-up time.

The defendant brought a motion to stay or dismiss the action on the basis that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.

The plaintiff, a UK national residing in Bahrain, had entered into an oral loan agreement with the defendant, who claimed to reside in Pakistan.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant was domiciled or resident in Ontario, or carried on business in Ontario.

The court found that while the defendant carried on business in Ontario, the presumption of jurisdiction was rebutted because there was no real and substantial connection between the loan agreement and the defendant's business activities in Ontario.

The action was stayed for lack of jurisdiction simpliciter.

The offender, a 31-year-old first-time offender, was found guilty of sexual assault after forcing the complainant to have vaginal intercourse twice.

The Crown sought 28 months' custody, while the defence sought 14 to 18 months followed by probation.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the highly aggravating circumstances of the major sexual assault and the offender's lack of remorse, while acknowledging his lack of prior record.

The offender was sentenced to two years in the penitentiary along with ancillary orders.

Allstate appealed an insurance arbitrator's decision holding it responsible for paying statutory accident benefits to a claimant.

The arbitrator found that Allstate failed to notify Wawanesa of a priority dispute within 90 days of receiving a completed application, and failed to satisfy the test for late notice.

Allstate argued the 90-day period had not commenced because the application was signed by the claimant's aunt, not the claimant.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator correctly interpreted 'signed application' to include signatures by non-claimants, and reasonably concluded that Allstate had sufficient information to commence its priority investigation but failed to act diligently.

The accused was charged with armed robbery, possession of a loaded firearm, and reckless discharge of a firearm following a bank robbery.

The Crown's case relied heavily on video surveillance and the testimony of a co-accused who had already pleaded guilty.

The court carefully assessed the co-accused's evidence as an unsavoury witness, finding it credible and corroborated by circumstantial evidence.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, concluding he was the individual who brandished and fired a handgun during the robbery.

The applicant father sought to relocate with the two children from Toronto to Lindsay, Ontario.

The respondent mother opposed the move and brought multiple motions to adjourn the bifurcated trial, citing unsupported medical issues.

The court dismissed the adjournment requests and proceeded with the trial.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz framework, the court found that the high-conflict environment was primarily driven by the mother and that the children desired the move.

The court concluded it was in the children's best interests to relocate to Lindsay with the father, and ordered a specified parenting schedule to ensure maximum contact with the mother.