SCJ 2020

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendant's jury notice due to trial delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The trial, arising from a 2012 motor vehicle accident, had been adjourned multiple times and was scheduled for February 2021 in London, Ontario.

Given the suspension of civil jury trials, the elderly plaintiff's failing health, and the financial hardship of the co-plaintiff, the court found that further delay would prejudice the plaintiffs.

The court conditionally struck the jury notice, ordering the trial to proceed judge-alone unless jury trials resumed by the trial date.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendant's jury notice due to the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing that further delay of their motor vehicle accident trial would cause prejudice.

The court reviewed the current state of court operations in London and the evolving jurisprudence on striking juries during the pandemic.

Adopting a 'wait and see' approach, the court found it premature to strike the jury notice for a trial scheduled three months away.

The motion was dismissed, but the plaintiffs were granted leave to renew the motion if jury trials are cancelled for the scheduled trial period.

The accused was charged with possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking and multiple firearms offences following a police investigation into her boyfriend's drug dealing.

Police observed the boyfriend conducting drug transactions from the accused's car and later executed search warrants, finding drugs at an apartment and a firearm in the accused's bedroom.

The court found the accused not guilty on all charges, concluding the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she had knowledge and control of the drugs found at the apartment, or that she knowingly possessed the firearm, particularly given her boyfriend's spontaneous confession that he had hidden the gun in her room without her knowledge.

The applicant church sought an interim injunction to exempt it from O. Reg. 82/20, which restricted religious gatherings to a maximum of ten people in regions designated as Stage 1 during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The church argued the regulation infringed its freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that the church established a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm.

However, the court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured the respondent, as the public interest in protecting health and preventing the spread of COVID-19 outweighed the temporary restriction on the church's religious freedom.

The application for an interim injunction was dismissed.

The applicants brought an application for damages and an accounting arising from an alleged breach of contract relating to referral fees between two law firms.

The matter was forwarded to the judge for determination in writing, having been incorrectly treated as a consent or unopposed motion.

Upon reviewing the full record, including the respondent's opposing materials, the judge concluded that a disposition based on the written record was not appropriate due to material facts in dispute and legal issues requiring a hearing or trial.

The matter was returned to Civil Practice Court for scheduling.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking payment on two defaulted charges/mortgages and possession of the secured properties.

The defendants had defaulted on payments and failed to pay out the charges at maturity.

One defendant did not appear, and the other appeared but filed no materials, arguing only that refinancing was difficult due to marital separation and lack of cooperation from the co-owner.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs for the outstanding debt and possession of both properties, and assessed costs.

The court clarified that obtaining a Writ of Possession for a residential rental unit requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, challenging his detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to significant trial delay and the introduction of new, more vigilant sureties (the applicant's sister and grandmother).

On the secondary ground, despite the seriousness of the charges (robbery with a firearm, arson, mischief) and rising gun violence, the court was satisfied the applicant discharged his onus, considering his lack of prior violent convictions, physical disability from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, and the strict house arrest plan.

On the tertiary ground, the court weighed the applicant's positive COVID-19 diagnosis amidst an outbreak at the detention centre, along with his youth, lack of convictions, physical disability, and the prospect of pre-trial custody approaching a potential sentence, concluding that public confidence would not be undermined by his release.

Bail was granted with stringent conditions, and the court explicitly removed "keep the peace and be of good behaviour" and "follow rules of the home" conditions, citing R. v. Zora on principles of restraint and judicial oversight of bail terms.

The self-represented appellant applied under s. 684 of the Criminal Code for the appointment of state-funded counsel to assist with his appeal of convictions for assault causing bodily harm and assault of a peace officer.

The convictions arose from an altercation with correctional officers while the appellant was an inmate.

The court found that the appeal raised arguable issues regarding the officers' use of force, self-defence, and potential Charter breaches.

Concluding that the appeal involved complex legal issues that the court would be better able to determine with the assistance of counsel, the application was granted and counsel was appointed.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion for a stay of an interim relocation order, the applicant sought full recovery costs of over $12,000.

The respondent argued for a reduced quantum of $3,000 due to recent job loss and financial strain.

The court found no bad faith to justify full recovery but awarded costs at 75% of full recovery to sanction the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.

Costs were fixed at $9,600, with a direction that failure to pay would not bar the respondent from future participation in the proceeding.

ICapital Financial Services Corp. brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the main action by Alireza Ghasempoor and judgment on its counterclaim against Ghasempoor and third-party claim against Atciti Corp. The court dismissed Ghasempoor's action, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding his claims of damaged credit rating and unreasonable payment demand.

The court granted summary judgment to ICapital on its counterclaim and third-party claim, finding Atciti Corp. defaulted on a loan agreement, triggering Ghasempoor's personal guarantee.

Judgment was awarded for $82,250.00 plus pre- and post-judgment interest, and costs were fixed.

The applicant was previously successful on an urgent motion for the return of her children, who were unlawfully withheld by the respondent.

The court determined the quantum and scale of costs for that motion.

Finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by withholding the children without justification, keeping them out of school, and intending to inflict financial and emotional harm, the court awarded the applicant full indemnity costs of $5,545.46 pursuant to Family Law Rule 24(8).

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Revised Amended Statement of Claim for non-compliance with the rules of pleading.

The court found that many paragraphs contained evidence or irrelevant allegations rather than material facts.

Instead of striking the pleading without leave to amend, the court conducted a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis, striking the non-compliant paragraphs and assembling the remaining compliant paragraphs into a new Amended Statement of Claim, which the plaintiff was granted leave to deliver.

The mother brought a motion to change a shared parenting order to sole custody and primary residence, which was ultimately resolved on consent after significant litigation.

The mother sought full recovery costs of $105,842.66, arguing the father's unreasonable behaviour drove up costs.

The father argued each party should bear their own costs as the matter settled on consent.

The court found the mother was the successful party and the father's entrenched position was unreasonable, but held the mother's claimed costs were disproportionate.

The court awarded the mother costs of $35,000.

The appellant husband appealed an arbitrator's award dismissing his claim to a 50 percent beneficial ownership interest in the matrimonial home.

The husband had transferred his jointly-held interest in the home to the respondent wife to protect it from potential creditors.

The arbitrator found the transfer was a gift, not a resulting trust.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the arbitrator correctly applied the presumption of resulting trust, properly considered the husband's intention to defeat creditors, and made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the husband intended to gift his interest and divested himself of control over the property.

The respondent father brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that the matrimonial home, registered solely in the applicant mother's name, was held in trust for both of them, and an order for its sale.

The paternal grandmother, who had advanced funds for the home's purchase, supported the motion and abandoned her proprietary claim, seeking only repayment.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding ownership, concluding the father had an equal beneficial interest based on unjust enrichment.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home within 45 days, with $500,000 of the proceeds to be held in trust pending resolution of the grandmother's civil action and other financial issues.

The court provided directions for quantifying damages following a summary judgment that found the plaintiff wrongfully dismissed.

Despite a pending appeal by the defendant, the court ordered the plaintiff to submit damages evidence, with the defendant to respond only if the appeal is dismissed.

The court rejected the defendant's request for a full trial on moral damages, emphasizing that the summary judgment process should continue for damages quantification, including the potential for oral evidence under Rule 20.04(2.1) and (2.2) if necessary for a fair adjudication.

Michael Kilbride, charged with drug trafficking, sought a review of his detention order under s. 525 of the Criminal Code after being initially detained on primary and secondary grounds.

The court considered a new bail plan involving residential drug addiction treatment at the Salvation Army's Anchorage program.

The judge found that the comprehensive program, coupled with support from a CMHA worker and diligent counsel, mitigated the primary and secondary ground concerns, including the risk of reoffence and failure to appear.

The court also considered the applicant's asthma and the COVID-19 pandemic as factors favoring release, concluding that continued detention was not necessary.

In a long-standing and highly acrimonious family trust dispute, the court considered multiple motions, including motions to dismiss for delay and abuse of process, and motions for a further and better accounting.

The court found that the plaintiffs (two of the sons) had engaged in an abuse of process through a 'scorched-earth' litigation strategy, including failing to produce relevant documents they controlled, changing counsel repeatedly, refusing to mediate, and launching collateral attacks.

Consequently, the court dismissed their actions.

However, recognizing that the trusts still required an accounting for the benefit of the other beneficiaries (the grandchildren), the court ordered the remaining trustees to provide a further and better accounting, and ordered the redemption of the matriarch's shares in the underlying holding company.

M & P Tool Products Inc. sought summary judgment against David Lawson for civil fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, and dismissal of Lawson's counterclaim for intentional infliction of mental injury and harassment.

Lawson resisted, arguing that M & P condoned the fraud and that his counterclaim required a trial.

The court found that M & P's knowledge of Lawson's fraudulent activities was central to both the main action and Lawson's defence of condonation, raising significant credibility issues that could not be resolved on a written record.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed in its entirety, requiring a full trial.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a $1.6 million matured mortgage.

The defendant's last-minute request for an adjournment was denied due to a lack of extenuating circumstances.

The court granted judgment for the principal debt, accrued interest, and possession.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for various administrative fees and a three-month interest charge, finding them to be unenforceable penalties at common law and in violation of section 8 of the Interest Act, as the plaintiff provided no evidence that they were genuine pre-estimates of damages or actual costs incurred.