SCJ 2021

The applicant sought certiorari to quash an order committing him to stand trial for second-degree murder.

The applicant argued that the preliminary hearing judge exceeded her jurisdiction by failing to consider exculpatory evidence regarding the mens rea element of the offence.

The reviewing court found that the preliminary hearing judge properly considered the totality of the evidence, including the exculpatory statement, and correctly applied the test for committal based on circumstantial evidence of mens rea derived from surveillance video.

The application for certiorari was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to stand trial.

The Crown sought a ruling on the voluntariness of a statement made by the accused to RCMP officers while he was in custody in Bermuda awaiting trial for importing fentanyl.

The accused argued the statement was involuntary due to oppressive conditions, inducements, and police trickery.

The court applied the Oickle framework and found that the RCMP officers made no threats or promises, the conditions were not oppressive, and the accused maintained an operating mind throughout the interview.

The statement was ruled voluntary.

The accused were charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and other offences following a traffic stop.

The driver threw a brick of cocaine out the window while the passenger resisted arrest.

The court rejected the driver's exculpatory testimony, finding him guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, but acquitted him of simple possession and dangerous driving.

The passenger was found guilty of possession of proceeds of crime and resisting arrest, but acquitted of the drug charges as there was insufficient evidence he knew the cocaine was in the vehicle.

The applicant mortgagor challenged various fees included in two mortgage discharge statements provided by the respondent mortgagees.

The court disallowed the renewal fees, finding no evidence of an agreement to renew.

The court also struck the NSF and late payment administration fees, ruling they constituted unlawful penalties under section 8 of the Interest Act as there was no evidence they reflected actual administrative costs.

The legal and power of sale fees were referred to an Assessment Officer under the Mortgages Act.

The applicant in a family law proceeding brought a motion to amend her pleadings to add her spouse's corporation as a third party, seeking repayment of alleged demand loans.

The corporation opposed the motion, arguing that the limitation period had expired because the original family law application constituted a demand for payment.

The court allowed the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that the original application, which named only the spouse, constituted a clear and unequivocal demand to the corporation itself.

The applicant was permitted to amend her reply to add the corporation as a party.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings due to his failure to comply with five previous court orders requiring him to provide financial disclosure.

The respondent, who was self-represented, had repeatedly failed to produce necessary banking and corporate records, particularly concerning assets in the Middle East.

The court found that the respondent's non-compliance was deliberate and willful, severely prejudicing the applicant's ability to advance her claims for support and property division.

Applying the principles for striking pleadings, the court concluded that this was an extreme case warranting the drastic remedy.

The respondent's pleadings were struck, the applicant was permitted to proceed to an uncontested trial, and costs were awarded to the applicant.

The moving defendants in a medical malpractice action sought an order compelling the plaintiffs to produce child welfare files from the Children's Aid Society and Nogdawindamin Family and Community Services, arguing the plaintiffs undertook to produce them at discovery.

The plaintiffs resisted, arguing the undertakings were subject to relevance and privilege, and that the files were highly sensitive and irrelevant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the undertakings were qualified and that production of the entire child welfare files was disproportionate and highly prejudicial given the speculative relevance to the damages claims.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motions for summary judgment regarding a prefabricated building dispute, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought $50,000 in elevated costs or $40,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found no basis for elevated costs but awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs.

Noting some excessiveness in the plaintiff's use of two lawyers, the court fixed the costs at $33,000, inclusive of disbursements, to be paid equally by the defendants, and ordered a case conference to manage outstanding issues.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, sought to exclude a photograph taken of him surreptitiously by a police officer while he was seated in a courtroom for an unrelated matter.

The accused argued the photograph violated his rights under sections 7 and 8 of the Charter.

The court found no Charter breaches, noting there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public courtroom and no state compulsion involved.

However, the court exercised its residual discretion to exclude the photograph because the officer violated section 136 of the Courts of Justice Act, which prohibits taking photographs in a courtroom without judicial authorization.

The accused was found guilty of 18 counts of firearms trafficking following an undercover police operation.

He brought applications for a stay of proceedings, alleging entrapment and an abuse of process under s. 7 of the Charter.

He argued that the police exploited his vulnerability as a stateless person and that the use of a volatile police agent in public areas shocked the community.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the police merely provided an opportunity to commit the offences and did not induce the accused.

The court also held that the police conduct, including the monitoring of the agent and the locations of the transactions, did not amount to an abuse of process.

The bankrupt applied for a discharge, which was opposed by the Trustee and the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy.

The court found that the bankrupt had failed to disclose assets, including a US bankruptcy filing and an assignment of funds, and had failed to accurately report his income for surplus income calculations.

The court granted a conditional discharge, requiring the bankrupt to pay $12,000 for surplus income and $4,800 for outstanding fees, and ordered that he must obtain leave of the court before filing for creditor protection in the future.

The paternal aunt and uncle brought a summary judgment motion seeking sole custody of their eight-year-old niece, who had been in their care continuously since December 2018 due to her parents' substance abuse and neglect.

The parents did not respond to the motion or attend the hearing.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society and the Office of the Children's Lawyer supported the motion.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the parents' lack of progress and the child's strong desire to remain with her aunt and uncle.

The court granted summary judgment, awarding sole custody to the aunt and uncle with strict conditions for any future parental access.

The applicant sought an order for directions and his appointment as Estate Trustee under a 2020 Will.

The respondent objected, alleging the deceased lacked testamentary capacity due to alcoholism and was subject to undue influence.

The respondent sought widespread production of the deceased's medical, legal, and financial records.

The court found that the respondent had not met the minimal evidentiary threshold required by Neuberger Estate v. York to compel proof in solemn form or order extensive productions at this stage.

The court adopted the applicant's proposed order for directions, allowing the respondent to file further evidence before determining if the threshold is met.

The accused was charged with second-degree murder following the death of his wife, who died from blunt force trauma resulting in a lacerated liver.

The accused claimed he acted in self-defence and that the fatal injuries were accidental.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as a fabrication, finding that he inflicted the severe beating that caused her death.

However, due to the accused's significant intoxication and the lack of evidence regarding how the assault unfolded, the court found a reasonable doubt as to whether he had the specific intent required for murder.

The accused was found not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter.

The plaintiffs, commercial tenants of a sports bar, sought leave to amend their statement of claim against the defendant landlord to add claims under the Occupiers' Liability Act and for punitive damages related to toxic mold on the premises.

The defendant opposed, arguing the amendments constituted new causes of action that were statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding that the original claim contained sufficient material facts regarding the defendant's control of the premises and alleged bad faith conduct, such that the amendments merely particularized existing claims and did not constitute new causes of action.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The accused faced three counts of sexual assault.

The total delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The Crown argued that the delay was justified by exceptional circumstances, specifically the COVID-19 pandemic and unanticipated issues during the preliminary inquiry.

The court found that the Crown failed to establish that the pandemic or the preliminary inquiry issues caused the delay, attributing much of the delay to Crown inaction.

The application was granted and the charges were stayed.

The defendant grandmother, who was the primary caregiver for her severely autistic grandson, moved to strike a negligence claim against her.

The plaintiffs alleged she was negligent in altering her grandson's medication dosage and failing to inform his school before a trip to a public pool, where the grandson injured the plaintiff.

The court applied the Anns/Cooper test and found it was reasonably foreseeable that failing to properly medicate the grandson and inform the school could result in harm to members of the public.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding a prima facie duty of care and genuine issues for trial.

The applicant sought to remove the respondent as the attorney for property and personal care for her father, alleging he lacked capacity to grant the power of attorney, that the respondent exercised undue influence, and that the respondent mismanaged his property and care.

The court found insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of capacity or to establish undue influence.

The court also found no strong and compelling evidence of misconduct or neglect by the respondent to justify terminating the valid power of attorney.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant property owner sought a declaration that the respondents breached an agreement of purchase and sale, an eviction order, and damages.

The respondent brought a motion to stay the application, arguing the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court found that a landlord and tenant relationship existed and the parties could not contract out of the Act, meaning the applicant must comply with the Act for eviction.

However, the court declined to stay the entire application, as the claims for breach of contract and damages fell outside the Board's exclusive jurisdiction.

The respondent mother brought a motion to change a final order to allow her to relocate with the children to the Niagara region to attend college.

The applicant father opposed the move and brought a cross-motion for sole custody and primary residency.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding the mother's employment and financial situation, and held that the move was in the children's best interests.

The mother's motion to relocate was granted, the father's cross-motion for custody was dismissed, and the father's access schedule was varied to provide him with additional time to accommodate the move.