SCJ 2021

The plaintiffs brought a motion for judgment arising from the defendants' breach of a settlement agreement.

The defendants failed to pay the final installment, sign a consent to judgment, and sign a consent to a dismissal order, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to unilaterally alter the terms.

The court found no valid reason for non-compliance, rejected the pandemic excuse, and granted judgment for the plaintiffs in the amount of $90,000 (the $120,000 default amount less $30,000 paid), plus substantial indemnity costs.

The applicant previously obtained an urgent, ex parte temporary parenting order against the respondent, with a return date set for an open motions list.

When the respondent attempted to file a counter-motion, the court registry refused to accept it on the basis that the open list motion was already scheduled for the maximum one hour.

The court intervened, holding that it would be contrary to natural justice and procedural fairness to prevent the respondent from filing a counter-motion after an ex parte order had been made against him.

The court directed that the counter-motion be accepted and set strict time limits for both parties to make their submissions within the allotted one hour.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application following the offender's convictions for robbery with a firearm and related offences.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record and history of institutional violence, alongside diagnoses of complex PTSD and antisocial personality traits.

The court found that while the offender demonstrated a pattern of reactive violence and posed a high risk of violent recidivism, his conduct was not intractable given the possibility of change through long-term, intensive federal programming.

The court dismissed the dangerous offender application, designated the offender a long-term offender, and imposed a 4-year penitentiary sentence followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The plaintiffs in a personal injury action moved to strike the defendants' jury notice due to the suspension of civil jury trials in London caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The action was scheduled for a four-week trial in May 2021.

The court balanced the defendants' substantive right to a jury trial against the prejudice of indefinite delay and the broader interests of the administration of justice.

The court ordered a conditional remedy: the jury notice is struck if the matter is called for a judge-alone trial in May 2021, but remains in place if the trial is not called due to a lack of judicial resources, with leave for the plaintiffs to renew the motion closer to the rescheduled date.

The applicant, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, received notice of relocation to Manitoba and sought an urgent case conference after the respondent refused to consent to the child's relocation.

The court reviewed the recent relocation amendments to the Children's Law Reform Act, noting the applicant appeared to have complied with the notice requirements.

The court granted the request for an urgent case conference to allow the parties to receive judicial input on the new relocation protocol and ordered the respondent to formally notify the applicant of his objection.

The applicant father and respondent mother brought urgent motions regarding parenting time, school enrollment, and interim support following their separation.

The court ordered an interim interim parenting schedule of four days with the father and three days with the mother during the school year, and week-about during the summer.

The child was ordered to attend public school in the father's catchment area for the remainder of the school year.

As a condition of adjourning the motions, the mother was ordered to pay $5,000 in four installments, to be credited towards any future support orders.

The applicant brought a motion to change a final order to include retroactive child support, arguing the respondent failed to disclose a $29,908 debt registered as a lien on the matrimonial home.

The original settlement had offset child support arrears against the applicant's equalization payment for the home.

The respondent failed to appear at the hearing.

The court found the undisclosed debt constituted a change in circumstances under the Divorce Act, as the applicant would not have agreed to the offset had she known of the lien.

The court varied the order, requiring the respondent to pay $34,454 in child support arrears and $15,000 in costs, and dismissed the respondent's cross-motion.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate defendant for defaulting on a commercial loan and against the personal defendants on their guarantees.

The defendants argued they did not understand the loan documents and that the Covid-19 pandemic frustrated the contract.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no evidence to support the defence of non est factum and holding that the pandemic did not alter the fundamental nature of the lending agreement, especially since the business was already failing prior to the pandemic.

Following the release of reasons for judgment in a family law application, the respondent brought a motion under Rule 25(19) seeking to dismiss the application or order a new trial due to factual errors in the judgment.

The court acknowledged a minor factual error regarding the source of a down payment but found it did not alter the conclusion that there was a joint family venture and unjust enrichment.

The court also clarified the calculation of the applicant's 35% interest in the accumulated properties.

The respondent's motion was dismissed, as the remaining issues were either previously addressed or relied on new evidence that could have been adduced at trial.

In a family law proceeding, the court ordered both the applicant and the respondent to provide updated financial disclosure regarding their respective properties.

The parties were directed to exchange mortgage and line of credit statements, MPAC assessments, and details of any rental income received since December 2017.

Further submissions on the net equity of the properties were scheduled to follow the disclosure.

The offender was convicted of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old who had passed out intoxicated on his couch.

The offender had a prior conviction for aggravated sexual assault for which he served a six-year penitentiary term.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the severe psychological trauma suffered by the victim.

The court sentenced the offender to 7 years' incarceration, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition, a lifetime SOIRA order, and a no-contact order.

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample, arguing his s. 11(b) Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time was violated.

The trial, originally scheduled for two days, took over five months to complete in the Ontario Court of Justice, resulting in a net delay of 18 months and 2 days.

The Superior Court of Justice found the trial judge erred in characterizing the appellant's self-represented status and court scheduling issues as exceptional circumstances.

The appeal was granted and the charges were stayed.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend his statement of claim to add unnamed directors and officers of the corporate defendant, alleging negligence in a workplace harassment investigation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed defendants were not identified, there is no tort of negligent investigation against employers in Ontario, and the plaintiff failed to plead material facts showing the directors and officers exhibited a separate identity of interest from the corporation.

The accused was tried on charges of aggravated assault and attempted murder arising from a stabbing in a residential complex.

The central issue was identity, with the Crown relying primarily on the complainant’s recognition evidence, related phone-call evidence, and observations by civilian witnesses after the stabbing.

The court rejected the accused’s evidence as not credible, but held that this did not resolve the burden on the Crown under the W.(D.) framework.

Given serious credibility concerns with the complainant, weaknesses in the recognition evidence, and significant evidentiary gaps including the absence of cell phone records and further identification procedures, the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on both charges.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion to reinstate their action and the granting of the defendants' motions for summary judgment and a vexatious litigant declaration, the court determined the costs payable to the defendants.

The plaintiffs failed to provide responding costs submissions and had a history of ignoring adverse costs awards.

The court awarded the defendants their requested costs on a partial indemnity basis, totaling $85,832.43.

The defendants moved to stay the plaintiff's action for breach of a franchise development agreement, relying on an arbitration clause specifying Chicago as the venue.

The plaintiff opposed the stay, arguing that the defendants had no real presence in Chicago and that the forum was inconvenient and artificial.

The court granted the stay, applying the competence-competence principle and holding that in the era of virtual hearings, traditional forum non conveniens arguments are largely obsolete, as all locations are equally accessible online.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of failing to comply with a breath demand.

The trial judge had found the approved screening device (ASD) demand unlawful, concluding the officer lacked reasonable suspicion and failed to make the demand immediately.

The summary conviction appeal court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in law by rejecting the defence's concession on reasonable suspicion without explanation and by ignoring objective facts such as the odour of alcohol and the respondent's admission to drinking.

The appeal court also held the trial judge erred by interpreting 'immediately' as 'instantaneously', finding the two-to-four minute delay was reasonably necessary.

The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The plaintiff moved for a status hearing under Rule 48.14(5) to extend the set down deadline in an action regarding alleged construction defects in a custom home.

Only one defendant opposed the motion.

The Master found that the plaintiff provided an acceptable explanation for the litigation delay, noting that much of it was due to accommodating the defendants' requests.

The Master also found no evidence of non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The motion was granted, and a timetable was set for the remaining interlocutory steps.

The 94-year-old applicant, former spouse of the deceased, sought dependant support from his estate under the Succession Law Reform Act.

Despite a 1994 divorce judgment and minutes of settlement containing a full release, the deceased had been paying the applicant monthly spousal support until his death.

The court found it had jurisdiction to order support under s. 63(4) of the SLRA.

Concluding that the deceased failed to make adequate provision for the applicant and owed her a moral duty, the court ordered the estate to pay $3,400 per month in support for the remainder of her life.

Following an undercover online police operation, the accused was tried on charges of child luring, making sexually explicit material available to a child, and breach of probation.

The central issues were whether he believed the interlocutor was under 16 and whether his communications were for the purpose of facilitating designated sexual offences.

Applying the governing child-luring authorities and the W.D. credibility framework, the court rejected the accused's claim that he believed he was merely engaged in mutual internet 'trolling' with an adult.

The court found the evidence overwhelmingly established belief in the represented age of 14 and a subjective intent to arrange sexual activity, and entered convictions on all counts.