SCJ 2020

The Plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs after successfully proving copyright infringement and being awarded statutory damages.

The Defendants argued for no costs or their own costs due to the Plaintiff's limited success and failure to accept their settlement offer.

The court awarded the Plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $30,000, finding that neither party's settlement offer triggered Rule 49.10 consequences and adjusting the Plaintiff's claimed costs for reasonableness and proportionality.

The applicant condominium owners sought a declaration that the respondent condominium corporation had no lawful right to charge back the cost of repairs resulting from a water leak in their unit.

The leak occurred from a toilet while the owners were away for five months.

The court found that the owners committed an omission by failing to properly maintain the toilet and retain a plumber after a previous malfunction, and by failing to shut off the water during their prolonged absence.

The application was dismissed, and the owners were held liable for the repair costs up to the insurance deductible.

The applicant, Barrie Lynn, a 66-year-old man found unfit to stand trial due to dementia, challenged the constitutionality of s. 672.851(1)(a) of the Criminal Code under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

He argued that the provision, by precluding the Ontario Review Board from recommending a stay of proceedings at an initial disposition hearing, arbitrarily restricted the liberty of permanently unfit accused persons who do not pose a significant public threat.

The court dismissed the application, finding no sufficient causal connection between the impugned limitation and prejudice to the applicant's liberty or security of the person.

Furthermore, the court held that the limitation was not arbitrary, as it served the legitimate legislative purpose of ensuring adequate consideration of public safety and enhancing public confidence in the administration of justice by requiring a "second look" before a stay recommendation.

The respondent moved by a Rule 14B motion to continue previously heard substantive motions, either by virtual conference or in-person.

The applicant opposed a virtual hearing, citing potential prejudice.

The court noted that recent procedural changes eliminated the requirement for urgency or pressing matters for motions.

The substantive issues involved the enforceability of an alleged agreement and the effect of escrow provisions related to the sale of a commercial property.

Recognizing the complexities and the court's rescheduling challenges due to COVID-19, the court declined to immediately set a hearing mode or date.

Instead, it ordered a further case conference before another Justice to review the parties' positions on the substantive issues and the preferred mode of hearing (in-person vs. virtual), before rescheduling the motions.

Torstar Corporation sought court approval for a plan of arrangement to sell all its shares to NordStar Capital LP for $0.74 per share.

The arrangement was overwhelmingly approved by shareholders.

Competing bidder CMMH and dissenting shareholder Patrick Collins objected, alleging inadequate disclosure and a flawed bidding process due to hard lock-up agreements.

The court found the arrangement had a valid business purpose, the process was conducted in good faith with professional advice, and the objections were resolved fairly.

The court emphasized the weight given to the shareholder vote and the Board's business judgment, particularly in uncertain times, and approved the arrangement.

This is a costs endorsement following motions to compel discovery answers.

The Plaintiff, Vanalt Electrical Construction, Inc. (VEC), sought costs for its motion, while the Defendants, Ozz Electric Inc. et al., sought costs or reservation.

The court awarded VEC $5,000 in partial indemnity costs, finding that the Defendants' conduct unnecessarily prolonged the discovery process and increased litigation expenses.

Costs related to 33 adjourned questions were reserved for future determination.

Damion Stewart, charged with possession of fentanyl for trafficking, brought a pre-trial Charter application to exclude evidence seized from his car and person.

He argued infringements of ss. 8 and 9, asserting lack of grounds for investigative detention, a de facto arrest without reasonable and probable grounds, and an unreasonable search.

The court found reasonable suspicion for investigative detention, and that the manner of detention and search were justified by officer safety concerns, particularly due to non-compliance and observed reaching under the seat.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff in a subrogated action scheduled discoveries and proposed an independent insurance adjuster as its corporate representative.

Days before the scheduled discoveries, the defendants objected and insisted on examining the plaintiff's sole director.

The plaintiff rejected alternate proposals and unilaterally cancelled the discoveries.

Both parties brought motions for costs thrown away.

The court dismissed both the motion and cross-motions, finding that while the defendants should have raised the issue earlier, the plaintiff acted unreasonably in cancelling the discoveries.

The Plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs against the Defendants Zhou and Aguazion Inc. following two successful motions: a Mareva injunction and a variation of that order due to Zhou's fraud and misrepresentation.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs for the first motion, payable in the cause, and substantial indemnity costs for the second motion, fixed at $52,415.07, payable forthwith or from the Alternative Payment of Security Option (APSO) fund.

The judge found Zhou's conduct, including perjury and misleading evidence, warranted serious costs consequences, justifying substantial indemnity for the second motion.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment against the defendant due to default under a mortgage.

The defendant opposed, seeking to bring the mortgage back into good standing and alleging bad faith by the plaintiff.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial but declined to grant summary judgment immediately.

Instead, it granted the defendant conditional relief under Section 23(1) of the Mortgages Act, allowing her to cure the default by paying $100 into court and all outstanding money by a specified date, failing which the plaintiff could move for judgment.

Costs were reserved.

In an uncontested trial, the court addressed parenting, equalization, and support issues between the applicant father (AF) and respondent mother (RM).

The court determined the separation date as January 31, 2014.

Joint custody was ordered, with the AF having final decision-making authority for dental care.

A detailed parenting schedule was established for the children.

The court calculated the AF's income for support purposes, rejecting his arguments for a lower income, and found an equalization payment of $1,445,798 owing from the AF to the RM.

The AF's request to reduce this payment based on alleged overpaid child support and other expenses was denied.

Set-off child support was ordered for the RM in the amount of $8,575 per month, with the AF continuing to pay all s. 7 expenses.

No order for spousal support was made, as the RM explicitly refused to accept it.

This high-conflict family law case involved a dispute over parenting arrangements for a 10-year-old child and spousal support.

The applicant mother alleged sexual assault by the respondent father and sought no contact, while the father denied the allegations and sought to continue sole custody with expanded parenting time for the mother.

The court found the sexual assault allegations unproven and concluded that the parties' acrimony precluded co-parenting.

Sole custody was granted to the father, with a graduated expansion of the mother's parenting time.

Spousal support was awarded to the mother for a fixed period, with income imputed to her due to intentional unemployment.

The Applicant and Respondent brought motions and cross-motions concerning interim parenting time and parental decision-making for their two-year-old son.

The Applicant sought sole custody and a restricted parenting schedule for the Respondent, while the Respondent sought equal shared parenting time and joint custody.

The court rejected the Applicant's argument for maintaining the status quo, emphasizing the child's right to maximum contact with both parents.

The court ordered a gradual expansion of the Respondent's parenting time, culminating in a 2-2-3 rotating weekly schedule, and declined to make an order regarding parental decision-making at that interim stage.

The defendants brought a motion under Ontario's Anti-SLAPP legislation to dismiss a defamation action initiated by the plaintiffs.

The action stemmed from "vicious" online reviews posted by the defendants about the plaintiffs' plumbing business and its principal.

The court determined that the online reviews constituted "expression" on a "matter of public interest." While the plaintiffs' defamation claim was found to have substantial merit and no valid defence, the court ultimately dismissed the action.

It concluded that the minimal harm suffered by the plaintiffs did not outweigh the significant public interest in protecting freedom of expression, even when the expression was offensive and vitriolic.

The court also clarified that the plaintiffs had not properly pleaded the tort of intentional interference with economic relations.

Josiph Cardle, charged with first-degree murder, applied for judicial interim release.

The court considered the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds for detention under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

While the gravity of the offence and potential sentence were significant, the court found no substantial likelihood of flight or risk to public safety.

Crucially, the court determined that the apparent strength of the Crown's case for first-degree murder was not strong, citing issues with causation and the accused's understanding of the oxygen machine's role.

The court also emphasized that poverty and homelessness should not be a basis for detention.

Cardle was released on a recognizance with conditions, without a surety or fixed residential address.

The Caisse Populaire de North Bay Limitée moved for summary judgment seeking possession of a mortgaged property due to default on two mortgages and dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim alleging oppressive conduct.

The defendant, Christi-Anne Marie Lafrance, disputed the validity and amounts of the mortgages, arguing they were stayed or discharged by her bankruptcy, and that the Caisse engaged in oppressive conduct.

The court granted leave to amend the plaintiff's name to Caisse Populaire Alliance Limitée, granted summary judgment on the Caisse's claim, and dismissed the counterclaim, finding no genuine issue for trial.

The court clarified that secured debts are not stayed or discharged by bankruptcy if the debtor continues to benefit from the contract.

The defendants, Carleton University and the Steering Committee, brought motions for security for costs against the plaintiff, Wilson, Young & Associates Inc., under Rule 56.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed both motions.

Carleton failed to establish "good reason to believe" the plaintiff had insufficient assets.

While the Steering Committee satisfied the condition of multiple proceedings for the same relief, its motion was dismissed due to undue delay and resulting prejudice to the plaintiff, and lack of a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The accused, charged with sexual assault and other offences against his wife, sought a ruling on whether an application to adduce evidence of the complainant's prior sexual activity (WhatsApp messages) under ss. 276 and 278.92 of the Criminal Code could be brought mid-trial rather than pre-trial.

The court reviewed the legislative history, the purpose of the rape shield provisions, and the accused's Charter rights to make full answer and defence and against self-incrimination.

The court concluded that requiring a pre-trial application would force premature disclosure of impeachment material, potentially tainting the complainant's evidence and violating the accused's fair trial rights.

The court ruled that the application could be brought mid-trial.

The Monitor and Receiver in the CCAA proceedings of Urbancorp Toronto Management Inc. and affiliated entities brought three unopposed motions.

The court granted an extension of the stay period, finding the parties were working in good faith and had sufficient cash flow.

The court also granted a vesting order resolving a dispute over Fuzion Geothermal Room Units and approved a settlement between the Receiver and TS Sports Consulting Inc. regarding advisory fees, finding the settlement fair and commercially reasonable.

The applicant mother brought a motion for contempt against the respondent father for failing to return their two sons to Toronto by a specified date, in contravention of a prior court order.

The respondent filed a cross-motion seeking to vary the order, citing expired passports as the reason for non-compliance.

The court, without deciding the contempt or variation motions, issued an immediate order directing the respondent to attend the Canadian Embassy in Tunisia to obtain emergency travel documents for the children and to provide proof of compliance to the applicant.

Both the contempt motion and the cross-motion were adjourned to a later date.