SCJ 2021

The applicants sought an order granting them possessory title to a half-acre strip of land adjacent to their property, which was registered to the deceased respondent.

The applicants had mistakenly believed the strip was part of their property since 1978 and had continuously posted 'no trespassing' signs.

The court found that the applicants had established open, notorious, continuous, and exclusive possession for over 10 years prior to the land's conversion to the Land Titles system in 2000.

The court applied the mutual mistake exception to the inconsistent use requirement and granted the application, vesting title in the applicants.

The accused was charged with arson endangering life and arson damaging property following a fire in his apartment.

The accused, who was found unconscious and badly burned, testified he had no memory of the event and no motive to harm himself.

The court rejected the defence of automatism due to a lack of expert evidence.

However, the court found the Crown's expert fire investigator's opinion unreliable regarding the intentional setting of the fires.

Given the lack of motive and the gaps in the expert evidence, the court concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the fires were intentionally or recklessly set.

The accused was acquitted.

The offender was convicted of aggravated assault and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle after deliberately driving his car at two pedestrians, striking one and causing a compound fracture.

The court weighed the gravity of the offence, the offender's prior record, and the severe injuries against mitigating factors including strong community support and stringent house arrest conditions.

The offender was sentenced to three years in custody for aggravated assault and a concurrent twelve-month sentence for dangerous driving, along with a three-year driving prohibition and a ten-year weapons prohibition.

The parties separated after an eight-year marriage.

The central issues at trial were the validity of a prenuptial 'Family Agreement', a claim for unjust enrichment regarding home renovations, ownership of the family dog, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the Family Agreement to be a valid and binding domestic contract, which provided a juristic reason defeating the applicant's unjust enrichment claim.

The court ordered the family dog to remain with the applicant and calculated the equalization payment owed by the applicant to the respondent at $43,547.

The plaintiff brought a class action alleging that the defendant mining company made secondary market misrepresentations by failing to disclose the negative opinions of one of its mining consultants regarding a mineral resource estimate.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court dismissed the action, finding that the consultant's opinions were unsolicited, inexpert, premature, and based on unreliable data.

The court held that the defendants were not obliged to disclose unreliable information, meaning there was no omission of a material fact.

In the alternative, the court found that the defendants satisfied the reasonable investigation defence under the Securities Act.

Following an eighteen-day family law trial where the applicant's claims to set aside domestic contracts were dismissed, the respondent sought full recovery costs of $102,603.73.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, finding the respondent made an offer triggering Rule 18(14) consequences.

The court rejected allegations of bad faith but found both parties engaged in unreasonable behaviour, particularly the respondent's failure to provide full financial disclosure regarding his businesses.

The court ordered the applicant to pay costs of $53,750, reflecting partial indemnity prior to the respondent's offer and substantial indemnity thereafter, with a reduction for the respondent's disclosure failures.

The Crown brought an application to admit similar fact evidence in a sexual assault trial where the complainant allegedly lacked the capacity to consent due to intellectual disabilities.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence from another witness alleging the accused provided her with drugs before engaging in non-consensual sex.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the dissimilarities between the two scenarios outweighed the similarities, and the prejudicial effect of the evidence significantly outweighed its probative value.

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to determine the voluntariness of video-recorded statements made by the accused during a police interview.

The accused argued the statements were involuntary, primarily asserting he lacked an operating mind due to prior drug use and mental health issues, and that police failed to provide a standard primary caution before the interview.

The court applied the confessions rule framework, finding no evidence of threats, promises, oppression, or police trickery.

The court concluded the accused possessed an operating mind, as he demonstrated cognitive ability, knew he was speaking to a police officer, and understood the potential consequences of his statements, having received cautions earlier and spoken to counsel.

The statements were ruled voluntary and admissible.

The accused, a Taekwondo coach charged with sexual assault, applied for the production of interview recordings and notes held by the CBC involving one of the complainants.

The court determined that the common law O'Connor regime applied rather than the Criminal Code s. 278.1 regime, as the complainant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in statements made for a television documentary.

Balancing the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the media's freedom of the press under the Vice Media framework, the court ordered the CBC to produce limited, highly relevant excerpts of the interviews and notes.

In a judge-alone criminal proceeding involving sexual abuse allegations by teenage athletes against their taekwondo coach, the court considered both a Crown application to admit count-to-count and third-party similar fact evidence and a defence motion to sever counts involving one complainant.

Applying the similar fact framework, the court held that the evidence of other athletes was highly probative of the actus reus and of the controlling trust-based environment in which the abuse was alleged to have occurred, and that the Crown had disproved collusion on a balance of probabilities.

Applying the severance principles, the court nevertheless concluded that trial fairness required severance because the accused had an objectively justifiable intention to testify on one set of counts but not the others.

After the accused confirmed he would not testify on the remaining counts, the counts involving one complainant were severed and that complainant was barred from testifying as a similar fact witness in the ongoing trial.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference against a seven-year-old complainant.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding the offences occurred within the six-month limitation period, alleging a failure to resolve reliability concerns with the child's evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility and reliability analysis was sufficient and revealed no palpable and overriding error.

The parties separated after a 23-year marriage and engaged in a high-conflict custody dispute over their two children, one of whom has severe special needs.

The applicant mother sought joint custody and an equal time-sharing schedule, while the respondent father sought sole decision-making authority and primary residence for the special needs child during the school week.

The court found that the mother was unable to co-parent effectively, communicate with professionals, or prioritize the children's needs over her animosity toward the father.

The court granted sole decision-making authority to the father, ordered primary residence with the father for the special needs child during the school week to ensure consistency, and ordered an equal time-sharing schedule for the younger child.

The father's request to wind up a family trust was dismissed without prejudice due to procedural issues.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce a prior court order requiring the respondent to either reinstate her on his health benefits plan, provide independent confirmation of her ineligibility, or pay her $8,000.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant.

The court found that the respondent failed to provide the required independent confirmation to the applicant or her counsel by the court-ordered deadline.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the $8,000 forthwith, plus post-judgment interest.

The respondent's cross-motion was dismissed as the applicant's motion was successful and not vexatious.

The defendants, a police detective and the Crown, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for negligent investigation.

The plaintiff, a former police officer, alleged that the detective lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him for domestic violence offences and relied on unreliable complainants.

The court found that the detective conducted a comprehensive investigation, consulted with supervisors and the Crown, and met the standard of care of a reasonable police officer.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed, as there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment for damages arising from the defendant's failure to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant had agreed to purchase the plaintiffs' property but failed to obtain financing after a market correction.

The defendant communicated his inability to close prior to the closing date and failed to participate in closing preparations.

The court found that the defendant anticipatorily breached the agreement, relieving the plaintiffs of the obligation to tender perfectly.

The plaintiffs were awarded damages for the difference in sale price and carrying costs.

Criminal trial arising from allegations that a high-level martial arts coach sexually abused a teenage athlete over a period of years within a coach-athlete relationship marked by control, secrecy, and grooming.

The court addressed delayed disclosure, the complainant's university essay about another coach's sexual offences, and multiple inconsistencies in the complainant's accounts, but concluded these issues did not undermine her credibility or the reliability of her evidence on the core allegations.

Similar fact evidence from other athletes was admitted for limited purposes and provided some contextual support, though the court placed little weight on it in proving the charged acts.

Applying the W.(D.) framework to the accused's denial, the court held the Crown proved all 10 counts beyond a reasonable doubt, while reserving on whether some counts should be stayed as duplicative.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for refusing to comply with a roadside breath demand.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding the demand was made 'forthwith' and with reasonable suspicion.

The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the appeal, holding the 8-9 minute delay was reasonably necessary for the officer to run a query, wait for the screening device, and explain the consequences of refusal.

The court also found the objective component of reasonable suspicion was satisfied by the appellant's speed, failure to signal, departure from a licensed establishment, and odour of alcohol.

During a retrial for first-degree murder, the accused applied to reopen the evidentiary portion of the trial to cross-examine the Crown's principal witness, a Vetrovec witness, about new second-degree murder charges laid against him after he testified.

The court applied the Hayward test and dismissed the application, finding the proposed fresh evidence was not sufficiently relevant to material issues, would cause undue delay, and was unnecessary given the witness's character had already been thoroughly impeached at trial.

Judge-alone retrial on a charge of first degree murder arising from a 2006 disappearance where the victim's body was never located.

The Crown relied principally on accomplice evidence, a prior KGB statement from the accused's former common-law partner, and corroborative circumstantial evidence including cellphone records and post-offence conduct.

The court treated the accomplice as a classic Vetrovec witness, rejected large portions of his evidence absent confirmation, but found essential aspects of the killing and body disposal corroborated by independent evidence.

The court held the Crown proved intentional killing beyond a reasonable doubt, but failed to prove planning and deliberation or the distinct predicate confinement necessary for constructive first degree murder.

The accused was acquitted of first degree murder and convicted of second degree murder.

Following a temporary order that dismissed the applicant's request for interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and granted the respondent's motion for its sale, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought $15,137.37 in partial indemnity costs, while the applicant sought $23,995.00, arguing the respondent's unreasonable conduct justified a costs award in her favour despite her lack of success.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and awarded him costs, but applied a downward adjustment to account for his response to an offer to settle and his post-separation conduct, fixing costs at $10,000.