SCJ 2020

The Attorney General applied ex parte for a declaration that the temporary suspension of limitation periods under COVID-19 emergency regulations remained effective despite the revocation of the regulation.

The court raised concerns about the procedural appropriateness of seeking a declaration of law without notice or a factual underpinning.

To ensure the opposing view was represented, the court appointed amicus curiae to argue that the application was not a procedurally appropriate mechanism.

Following a family law trial regarding spousal support and property division, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought costs on a partial or full indemnity basis, arguing he was the most successful party and that the respondent acted unreasonably.

The respondent argued for full recovery costs based on divided success and an offer to settle.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party, having succeeded on periodic spousal support, security for support, and property division.

After considering the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and the reasonableness of the fees claimed, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant fixed costs of $150,000.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's anti-SLAPP motion in a defamation action, the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $61,000.

The court considered section 137.1(8) of the Courts of Justice Act, which presumes no costs are awarded to a responding party unless appropriate in the circumstances.

The court found that the defendant's expression related to a matter of public interest and the motion was not frivolous or brought for a strategic purpose.

Consequently, the plaintiff failed to rebut the statutory presumption, and no costs were ordered.

The defendants brought a motion for a mandatory interim injunction to enforce indemnity agreements and require the plaintiffs to advance funding for their legal expenses.

The court found that the Cytrynbaum jurisprudence did not apply because the motion sought a mandatory injunction against an individual and a corporation, rather than a final determination under the CBCA.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the defendants failed to establish a strong prima facie case due to concerns about conflicts of interest and lack of independent legal advice in the drafting of the indemnity agreements.

The court also found no irreparable harm, as any harm could be quantified in monetary terms.

The offender was convicted of trafficking in fentanyl, using forged fentanyl patches, and obtaining merchandise by false pretence.

He participated in a scheme where he returned forged patches to a pharmacy under Ontario's patch-for-patch program to obtain new fentanyl patches, which he then trafficked.

The court rejected the argument that the trafficking was merely sharing among prescription holders, finding it to be a sophisticated commercial operation.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the extreme dangers of fentanyl, the court sentenced the offender to 26 months in penitentiary for trafficking, with concurrent 18-month sentences for the forgery and false pretence offences.

The respondent mother brought a motion to strike the applicant father's pleadings or suspend the trial due to his failure to comply with a temporary order requiring him to pay child support, spousal support, and interim disbursements.

The father, who resides in Egypt, had accumulated over $58,000 in arrears and made no payments.

The court found the father's non-compliance to be willful and deliberate, noting he had been imputed an income of $250,000.

The court ordered the trial adjourned until the father demonstrates substantial compliance with the temporary order, and directed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to provide an updated Voice of the Child Report regarding access.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittals on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference involving a child complainant.

The Crown argued the trial judge failed to consider all identification evidence and failed to provide sufficient reasons for the acquittals.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the summary conviction appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and concluding that the reasons provided a clear analytical path explaining the acquittals based on the complainant's reliability.

Sentencing following convictions after trial for child sexual offences arising from repeated sexual touching, exposure, and an invitation to a child complainant to touch the offender for a sexual purpose.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, applying the proportionality principle in s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code and treating the complainant's age and the offender's abuse of a position of trust as significant aggravating factors.

Although the offender was a first offender with community support, mental health treatment, and a psychologist's opinion indicating extremely low risk of reoffending, those factors did not displace the need for a custodial sentence.

A 12-month term of imprisonment followed by one year of probation was imposed, together with ancillary orders.

The plaintiff developer sought a permanent injunction against protestors who occupied its lands and halted construction.

The self-proclaimed leader of the protestors, who was added as a defendant, openly defied previous interlocutory injunctions and stated his intention to continue doing so.

The court held that it was an abuse of process for a party to participate in proceedings while in flagrant contempt of court orders.

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to prohibit the defendant from further participation until he and his followers vacate the lands and comply with the court's orders.

A case conference was held to determine the sequencing and scheduling of proceedings leading up to the leave and certification motions.

The parties agreed on consent to have both motions heard at the same time and established a timetable for the exchange of materials, cross-examinations, and factums, with hearing dates set for June 7-9, 2021.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought an application under s. 278.93(1) of the Criminal Code to adduce evidence of prior sexual activity and communications with the complainant.

The Crown opposed, arguing the evidence engaged the twin myths under s. 276.

The court granted the application, finding that cross-examining the complainant on the prior incidents was necessary for the accused to make full answer and defence by challenging her assertion that they were merely friends, and that the evidence did not engage the twin myths if accompanied by proper jury instructions.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction and Certificates of Pending Litigation against the defendants, alleging they perpetrated a Ponzi scheme involving mortgage and securities fraud.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, oppression, and conspiracy, noting that tens of millions of dollars were raised without proper compliance and were unaccounted for.

The court inferred a strong risk of dissipation of assets based on the defendants' conduct, including the listing of a $4 million house and suspicious property transfers.

The motion for the Mareva injunction and CPLs was granted.

The accused was charged with robbery and wounding following a home invasion where two brothers were assaulted and stabbed.

The central issue at trial was identity.

The victims identified the accused, whom they had known from their neighbourhood years prior, both during the incident and in subsequent photo lineups.

Despite defence arguments regarding the reliability of the recognition evidence, the passage of time, and flaws in the photo lineup procedures, the court found the identification evidence credible and reliable.

The accused was found guilty of all charges.

The applicant moved for an advance on funds held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home, leave to amend his application, and disclosure of a deed and survey for the respondent's property in Sri Lanka.

The respondent also requested an advance from the trust funds.

The court dismissed both requests for an advance, finding it could not determine a minimum equalization payment on the record.

The court granted the applicant leave to amend his application, conditional on paying costs, and ordered the respondent to produce the deed and survey for the Sri Lankan property to facilitate a previously ordered appraisal.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) to strike the plaintiffs' claims for declaratory relief regarding express, resulting, and constructive trusts, as well as fraudulent conveyances.

The plaintiffs, who are judgment creditors, alleged that the defendants transferred properties to their spouses to defeat creditors.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the plaintiffs had pleaded sufficient facts to support their claims and that it was not plain and obvious the claims would fail.

The court also granted the plaintiffs' countermotion for a discovery plan.

The accused brought a pre-trial application challenging the constitutionality of a search warrant executed at her residence, which yielded a loaded handgun and crack cocaine.

The warrant relied heavily on information from a confidential source.

After denying the defence's request to cross-examine the affiant and allowing the Crown to rely on step 6 of the Garofoli procedure, the court assessed the facial validity of the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The court found that the police failed to sufficiently corroborate the confidential source's information, rendering the search a violation of the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the seriousness of the breach and its impact on the accused's privacy outweighed society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits, resulting in the exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2).

The court determined the costs of an appeal and related motions in a family law matter.

The respondent/appellant was successful on the appeal and sought costs of over $42,000.

The applicant/respondent in appeal argued she should not pay costs due to financial disparity and the impact on their child.

The court found the applicant's litigation conduct unreasonable but held the respondent's claimed costs were disproportionate to the amount at stake.

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court fixed costs at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicants brought a motion to enforce an interim settlement agreement with the City of Toronto regarding physical distancing standards in the city's shelter system during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The City had asserted compliance with the agreement on June 15, 2020, which would trigger the termination of the agreement.

The court found that the City breached the agreement by asserting compliance when it had not used its 'best efforts' to achieve the required physical distancing standards across all sites.

The court ordered the City to continue its pre-compliance reporting obligations until it fully met its obligations under the agreement.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim primary residence of the parties' two young children, or alternatively shared parenting or specified access.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for interim sole custody and supervised access for the father.

Both parties made serious allegations against each other regarding substance abuse, violence, and parenting ability.

The court found that the children should maintain their primary residence with the mother, who had been their primary caregiver, while granting the father regular, unsupervised access.

The court declined to order interim sole custody or supervised access, finding that the parties' recent escalation of conflict likely exaggerated their respective concerns.

The applicant mother moved for week-about access to her two children, who had been living with the respondent father since separation.

The father opposed, citing the mother's ongoing substance abuse and mental health issues, which had led to CAS involvement.

The court found that the current access arrangements lacked structure and required a change.

However, due to the mother's ongoing issues and the negative impact on the children, the court denied week-about access and instead ordered a temporary weekend access regime.