SCJ 2020

The accused was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault against the minor granddaughter of his long-time girlfriend.

The Crown applied to admit the complainant's video-recorded statement under section 715.1(1) of the Criminal Code, which was granted.

However, the court found significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainant's evidence, particularly when compared to the credible testimony of her grandmother.

Finding the complainant's evidence unreliable and prone to exaggeration, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all counts.

A police officer was convicted of criminal negligence causing death and failing to provide the necessaries of life after an Indigenous woman died in his custody from a methamphetamine-induced heart attack.

The officer failed to obtain medical assistance and lied to other officers about her condition.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the breach of trust and the victim's vulnerability.

The officer was sentenced to 12 months in custody, with the necessaries of life conviction conditionally stayed.

On a pre-trial Charter application in a multi-accused organized crime prosecution, the applicants sought to prevent disclosure of residential address information in the common disclosure brief.

The court held that immediate disclosure of one applicant’s home address engaged and would arbitrarily infringe his s. 7 rights because there was credible evidence of a prior attempt on his life, disclosure would materially increase the danger to him and his family, and the record did not establish any real present need for co-accused to know the precise address to make full answer and defence.

The court rejected arguments grounded in Stinchcombe, parity among accused, and avoidance of future disclosure litigation.

Relief was denied respecting the father’s address because the evidence did not establish danger to him or a sufficient causal connection.

The Crown was directed to work with defence counsel on redactions, and interim sealing orders were granted.

The plaintiff, a shareholder of the corporate defendant, sought leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation claim under the Securities Act following the collapse of a tailings storage facility at the defendant's mine.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant knew or ought to have known of the facility's compromised structural stability and failed to disclose it.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a public correction of the alleged misrepresentation.

The press release issued by the defendant merely stated that the facility had breached and the cause was unknown, which did not indicate that any previous disclosure was untrue or misleading.

The applicants, two of three co-accused in a large project prosecution involving a criminal organization, brought applications for a stay of proceedings alleging unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial was delayed by six weeks to accommodate the schedule of counsel for the third co-accused.

The court found that the net delay for one applicant fell below the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

For the other applicant, the court found that the delay exceeded the ceiling but was justified by exceptional circumstances, specifically case complexity and the strong public interest in holding a joint trial.

Both applications were dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for detailed particulars of the defendants' statement of defence, arguing they were necessary to file a reply.

The underlying action involved allegations of negligence and breach of contract regarding a severance application and home design.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the requested particulars were evidentiary in nature and should be elicited during examinations for discovery, rather than being necessary for the plaintiff to understand the issues or plead appropriately.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective and failed to object to inadmissible bad character evidence.

The summary conviction appeal court found that the Crown had improperly elicited highly prejudicial bad character evidence, including allegations of violence, misogyny, and homophobia, without seeking a ruling on its admissibility.

The court declined to apply the curative proviso, finding that credibility was the central issue at trial and it was not apparent that the trial judge had disregarded the inadmissible evidence.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The accused applied for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, seeking release on a house arrest plan with two sureties and GPS monitoring.

The accused was previously detained on the secondary ground due to a substantial likelihood of reoffending, having allegedly committed the current drug trafficking offences while on multiple bails.

The court found that while there was a material change in circumstances, the proposed sureties lacked sufficient knowledge of the accused to provide effective supervision.

The application was dismissed as the release plan did not adequately address the secondary ground concerns.

Following a trial where the plaintiff successfully established oppression and was awarded approximately $4.2 million for her shares and termination damages, the court determined the costs of the action.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of over $1.4 million, while the defendants argued for significant reductions based on the plaintiff's lack of success on several discrete issues.

The court rejected a strict distributive costs approach but reduced the plaintiff's fees by 20% to reflect unsuccessful claims, and made further deductions for post-trial motions and excessive counsel.

The plaintiff was awarded $608,960 in fees and $194,933.33 in disbursements.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent ex-parte motion for Mareva, Anton Piller, and Certificate of Pending Litigation orders against the defendants, alleging a multi-million dollar investment fraud.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud and a significant risk of asset dissipation.

The court granted all three orders, finding the respective tests were met, and scheduled a return date for the parties to report back.

The applicant moved for the partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed the sale, seeking exclusive possession to assess the home's value and potentially purchase the applicant's interest.

The court granted the motion for partition and sale, finding no malicious or oppressive conduct by the applicant and noting the respondent failed to establish a realistic claim for exclusive possession under section 24 of the Family Law Act.

The court ordered the property to be listed for sale and directed the parties to exchange updated financial statements to account for personal property sold post-separation.

The applicant father brought a motion for a temporary order granting him sole custody of two of his children, alleging parental alienation by the respondent mother.

The court reviewed extensive evidence, including reports from child protection workers, and found that the mother was intentionally engaging in parental alienation strategies to distance the children from their father.

Concluding that the children's expressed resistance to access was scripted and did not reflect their true feelings, the court ordered a temporary reversal of primary residence, granting sole custody to the father with restricted, supervised access for the mother.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for the approval of a settlement in three consolidated class actions against three immigration lawyers for professional negligence.

The class members were Roma refugee claimants from Hungary whose applications failed or did not proceed while represented by the defendants.

The court approved the settlement of $500,000 in damages and $50,000 in costs, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $181,500 and a $2,500 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The defendant property owner moved under Rule 45.02 for an order requiring her co-defendant, a second mortgagee who sold the property under a power of sale, to pay a portion of the sale proceeds into court.

The moving party alleged the mortgagee breached its duties by selling the property at an improvident price.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the moving party claimed a right to a specific fund, she failed to establish a serious issue to be tried regarding the mortgagee's conduct, and the balance of convenience favoured the mortgagee given the undisputed mortgage debt.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a representation order under Rule 10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to appoint Chief Kirby Whiteduck to represent the 'Algonquins' in an action challenging Ontario's decision to grant harvesting rights to two Métis communities in a settlement area currently under treaty negotiation.

The Métis Nation opposed the motion, arguing the class was insufficiently defined and the proposed representative lacked authority.

The court found that the class of collective rights holders was sufficiently defined, the claim was collective in nature, and the balance of convenience favoured appointing the proposed representative.

The motion was granted.

The plaintiffs in a proposed securities class action brought a motion for approval of a third-party Adverse Costs Indemnity and Funding Agreement with Camac Partners LLC.

The agreement provided up to $800,000 in adverse costs indemnity and $125,000 in disbursement funding in exchange for 10% of the net recovery, capped at $4 million.

The defendants did not oppose the motion.

The court approved the agreement, finding its terms fair, reasonable, and necessary to provide access to justice for the plaintiffs and the proposed class.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to determine whether the parties' three-year-old child should attend junior kindergarten in-person or online.

The mother sought in-person attendance, while the respondent father sought online learning, citing the health risks to his elderly parents who lived with him and had comorbidities.

The court also considered the admissibility of reply evidence, admitting two affidavits but excluding a surreptitious surveillance report.

Applying recent case law on pandemic schooling, the court found that while the father's own conduct regarding Covid-19 protocols was troubling, the risk to his parents' health weighed in favour of remote learning.

The court ordered the child to attend junior kindergarten online.

On a pretrial application, the accused sought severance of counts relating to two complainants on a single indictment alleging sexual assault causing bodily harm and sexual interference.

The court applied the interests of justice severance framework and held that, despite some moral prejudice concerns arising from one complainant's age and surrounding circumstances, the allegations were sufficiently connected in factual context and legal issues to support a joint trial.

The court further held that the Crown had a viable similar fact application because the allegations disclosed a strong and specific nexus, including unusual and distinctive features.

Balancing prejudice, trial fairness, efficiency, and the truth-seeking function of the process, the severance application was dismissed, with leave to renew if circumstances changed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused at the defendant's examination for discovery, to compel production of documents, and for leave to amend the statement of claim in a motor vehicle accident action.

The court ordered the defendant to disclose particulars of surveillance evidence before the plaintiff's examination, produce a redacted accident benefits application, and re-attend discovery regarding his opiate use.

The court also granted the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim to include allegations of impaired driving, punitive damages, and breaches of statutory settlement duties.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to serve a responding expert report regarding future care costs after the court-ordered deadline had passed.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing prejudice and undue delay.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate prejudice, as the trial had already been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, the court ordered the defendants to pay costs of $2,000 to the plaintiffs due to their cavalier attitude toward court orders.