SCJ 2021

The applicants sought to enforce an arbitral award against the respondent.

The respondent agreed to pay the full amount owing under the award, though the parties differed slightly on the precise calculation.

The court ordered the continuation of a Mareva injunction until the final amount is resolved and paid into court, and scheduled a further case conference to address the final calculations and costs.

In a bifurcated family law trial, the court determined the issue of decision-making responsibility for the parties' two children.

The applicant father sought sole decision-making authority, while the respondent mother sought split decision-making authority.

The court found the parents to be highly conflicted, with the mother exhibiting medical hypervigilance and the father showing aloofness regarding educational needs.

Applying the newly amended Children's Law Reform Act factors, the court concluded that a split order was unworkable and awarded final decision-making responsibility to the applicant father, subject to a structured consultation process.

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, was struck by a motor vehicle driven by the defendant in Michigan.

The plaintiff commenced an action in Ontario against the Michigan defendant in tort and his own insurer for underinsured coverage.

The Michigan defendant moved to stay the action for lack of jurisdiction.

The court applied the real and substantial connection test and found no presumptive connecting factors linking the tort claim to Ontario.

The court also declined to apply the forum of necessity doctrine, holding that the plaintiff's failure to commence an action in Michigan before the expiry of its limitation period did not create an exceptional circumstance justifying jurisdiction.

The action against the Michigan defendant was stayed.

The defendant, ProBuilt Lighting, brought a motion to withdraw an admission in its Statement of Defence that it manufactured a 'wobblelight' alleged to have caused a fire at a hospital.

The defendant discovered during discoveries that it did not exist at the time the light was manufactured.

The court granted the motion, finding that the admission was based on incomplete and erroneous information, there was a triable issue regarding the manufacturer, and the plaintiffs would not suffer prejudice that could not be compensated by costs.

The accused was charged with two counts of fraud over $5,000 and one count of using forged documents.

The Crown alleged that the accused and a co-conspirator obtained significant loans from two private lenders by falsely representing that the funds would be invested in lucrative Pakistani land deals and by providing forged bank letters to secure further advances.

The court found that the accused knowingly made misrepresentations that induced the lenders to advance funds that were never repaid.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, applied for certiorari and mandamus to quash a trial judge's decision to defer hearing a constitutional challenge and stay of proceedings application until after the trial on the merits.

The accused argued that a police media release violated their Charter rights and sought a stay.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding the trial judge committed no jurisdictional error in exercising his discretion to manage court resources and defer the constitutional issue, noting that an acquittal would render the constitutional issues moot for the purpose of the criminal trial.

The applicant and her husband were equal shareholders in a concrete forming business.

Following a marital breakdown, the husband incorporated a new company, transferred the original company's assets, employees, and business opportunities to it, and excluded the applicant from any role or ownership.

The applicant brought an application for an oppression remedy.

The court found the husband's conduct was oppressive, unfairly disregarded the applicant's interests, and breached his fiduciary duties.

The court ordered a buy-out of the applicant's 50 percent interest in the original company at fair market value, to be determined by a valuator, and awarded her compensation for 14 months of lost income.

The accused, a 65-year-old woman, was found guilty by a jury of importing 1.522 kilograms of cocaine.

Following numerous adjournments and failures to appear, the court found the accused had absconded and proceeded with sentencing in her absence pursuant to s. 475(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the quantity of cocaine and the nature of the offence against mitigating factors including the accused's age, significant health issues, and personal tragedies.

The court imposed a sentence of 3.5 years, reduced by 12 months for personal circumstances and 24 days for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of 2 years and 156 days incarceration.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against him arising from a three-way motor vehicle accident.

The defendant brought the motion before submitting to discovery and relied solely on a lawyer's double-hearsay affidavit rather than providing his own direct evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the record was insufficiently developed to permit a fair and just determination of the issues on the merits, and drew an adverse inference from the defendant's failure to provide his own evidence.

Sentencing decision for possession of child pornography involving an exceptionally large and highly depraved collection of images, videos, and written materials accumulated over years.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence were the paramount objectives under the Criminal Code and recent Supreme Court and Court of Appeal authority, particularly given the young ages of the children depicted, the graphic abuse shown, and the victim impact evidence of ongoing trauma.

Although the offender was elderly, medically frail, remorseful, and a first offender with strong community support, the court found a conditional sentence would impermissibly diminish the seriousness of the offence.

COVID-19 incarceration conditions and health risks were treated as collateral consequences but could not justify a sentence disproportionate to the gravity of the crime.

An 18-month custodial sentence was imposed together with DNA, SOIRA, and forfeiture orders.

The applicant father scheduled a motion for increased parenting time without first holding a case conference, contrary to a prior court order.

The judge declined to hear the motion and instead conducted a case conference.

The parties reached a consent order regarding the father's parenting time, attendance at parenting courses, a request for an Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation, and attendance at a medical appointment for their child.

The father's motion may be rescheduled if necessary.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to discharge a construction lien and certificate of action registered by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff failed to file responding materials and requested an adjournment, which was denied.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to perfect the lien within the 45-day statutory period under the Construction Lien Act.

As the lien had expired, the court granted the motion and ordered the lien discharged, awarding costs to the defendant.

The applicant in a family law proceeding sought a declaration that his former father-in-law held a half-interest in a condominium in constructive trust for the applicant's former spouse, aiming to increase her net family property for equalization purposes.

The father-in-law brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the trust claim.

The court granted the motion, holding that a person lacks private interest standing to advance a trust claim on behalf of a former spouse because an equalization claim creates only an indirect legal interest, not the direct personal legal interest required for standing.

The applicant mother brought an application for retroactive child and spousal support under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act.

The respondent father failed to respond, and the matter proceeded by default.

The court imputed an annual income of $80,000 to the father based on his employment and rental income.

The court ordered the father to pay $1,211 per month in child support and $640 per month in spousal support, both retroactive to the date of separation.

Following a family law trial with divided success, all three parties sought costs.

The Applicant sought $55,365.48, the Third Party sought $29,893.47, and the Respondent sought $51,864.22.

The court found the Respondent's request for full indemnity costs entirely without foundation as he was largely unsuccessful and engaged in unreasonable conduct.

The Third Party was awarded $12,000 for successfully defending against the Respondent's trust claims, but denied costs for her cross-claim due to lack of evidence.

The Applicant was awarded $5,000, significantly reduced due to divided success on section 7 expenses and her disorganization which unnecessarily protracted the trial.

The applicant, charged with multiple sexual offences, applied for a stay of proceedings alleging abuse of process.

He argued that the Crown improperly adjourned his bail hearing, police violated his right to silence, and a correctional officer directed another inmate to assault him while in pre-trial custody.

The court found that while the bail adjournment was improper, it was done in good faith and did not warrant a stay.

The court also found no violation of the right to silence and insufficient evidence that the correctional officer directed the assault.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The accused, charged with assault and sexual assault, brought an application for the production of third-party records, specifically police occurrence reports and officers' notes relating to previous complaints made by the complainant.

Following an initial ruling, the court reviewed the officers' notes to determine appropriate redactions.

The court ordered the release of the notes to the accused, subject to redactions protecting the identity and privacy of third parties and removing references to a separate youth record.

The father brought a motion to change a final parenting order, seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the 11-year-old child.

The court found overwhelming evidence that the mother had engaged in a consistent and long-term pattern of parental alienation and emotional abuse, severely damaging the child's relationship with the father.

Concluding that maintaining the status quo would be harmful, the court granted the motion, ordering the child to live with the father, granting him sole decision-making authority, and imposing a 90-day no-contact order between the child and the mother while the child undergoes reunification therapy.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of a motion brought by the defendants to set aside a charging order in favour of their former counsel.

The former counsel sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on unaccepted offers to settle and the defendants' unsupported allegations of fraud against him.

The court refused to defer the costs determination to a future assessment hearing.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the former counsel, finding that the defendants' unproven and unsupported allegations of fraud warranted sanction, and fixed the costs at $5,400.

The plaintiff moved for certification of a class action on behalf of debenture holders of Discovery Air Inc., alleging oppression by the defendants in a series of transactions that transferred Discovery's primary asset to Clairvest at a material discount.

Clairvest consented to certification but disputed the common issues and sought discovery directions, while the remaining defendants argued the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action against them.

The court found the pleadings sufficiently detailed to disclose a cause of action against the individual directors and the Top Aces entities.

The court certified the action, adopted a broad definition of the common issues with some additions proposed by Clairvest regarding causation and reasonable expectations, and declined to order non-party production or expanded discovery at this early stage.