SCJ 2021

The respondents brought a motion to remove the applicant's counsel, alleging a conflict of interest because counsel acted for the applicant personally, as Estate Trustee, and for the Estate, and arguing counsel might become witnesses.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that counsel acts for the Estate Trustee, not the Estate, and there was no evidence of a conflict or that counsel would need to testify.

The court also ordered the respondents to provide outstanding disclosure, pay $15,000 in costs thrown away for a previously adjourned hearing, and directed that any proceeds from the sale of a disputed condominium be paid into court.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order that the post-secondary expenses for the parties' adult child be shared equally between the parents and the child.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing she could only afford to pay the table amount of child support due to her limited financial means.

The court found that the child had the means to make a significant contribution to her own expenses and that the mother had limited financial ability compared to the father.

The court ordered the mother to pay the equivalent of table child support directly to the child, with the father responsible for the remaining balance of the reasonable expenses.

The plaintiff, an unpaid supplier of building materials, brought a motion under Rule 45.02 to have the proceeds of sale from one of the contractor's construction sites held in court pending the outcome of its action.

The plaintiff argued that the entire proceeds constituted a trust fund under section 8 of the Construction Act, even though the amount owed for materials supplied to that specific property was much less than the total debt owed across multiple projects.

The court held that the statutory trust under section 8 is project-specific, limiting the plaintiff's trust claim to the value of materials supplied to that particular property.

The motion was granted in part, with only the amount owed for that specific property, plus interest, ordered to be retained in court.

The moving party brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss a defamation claim arising from his distribution of a petition criticizing the responding party's leadership of a religious society.

The petition included a false allegation that the responding party's family sold society lands without accounting for the proceeds.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the expression related to a matter of public interest, the responding party failed to show the claim had substantial merit or that there were no valid defences, and the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed the harm to the responding party.

The Attorney General applied for civil forfeiture of $16,020 seized during a police raid of an apartment.

The respondent claimed that $15,000 of the seized funds was a cash loan from her sister to purchase a car, while the remaining $1,020 belonged to the target of the raid.

The court found that the $1,020 was proceeds of unlawful activity and ordered it forfeited.

However, the court accepted the respondent's evidence regarding the $15,000 loan, finding it was not connected to unlawful activity, and ordered those funds returned to her.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found 99 grams of cocaine hidden behind an intercom panel in a bedroom during a search warrant execution.

The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, arguing the bedroom belonged to the accused based on dated documents and large clothing found inside.

The accused testified he had moved to the basement months prior and that other individuals, including his brother, had access to the room.

The court applied the W.(D.) and Villaroman frameworks, finding the prosecution's circumstantial case weak and concluding the accused's evidence raised a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

The offender was convicted of second degree murder and manslaughter following a public shooting outside a nightclub.

The offender, who was involved in drug trafficking and habitually carried a firearm, shot and killed an innocent peacemaker and then shot and killed a second victim who attempted to prevent his escape.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with an 18-year period of parole ineligibility for the second degree murder, and a concurrent 15-year sentence for the manslaughter, emphasizing denunciation and the aggravating factor of the offender's involvement in the drug trade.

The offender was convicted of incest and sexual assault against his daughter, with the offences occurring between the ages of 11 and 15.

The court emphasized the profound breach of trust, the severe physical and psychological impact on the victim, and the need for denunciation and deterrence as per the Friesen framework.

The offender was sentenced to a global penitentiary term of 9 years, alongside non-communication, weapons prohibition, and SOIRA orders.

The applicant brought an application for equalization of property and spousal support.

The respondent argued that a cohabitation agreement signed prior to their marriage barred her claims.

The court held a bifurcated trial to determine the validity, enforceability, and content of the agreement.

The court found that there was adequate financial disclosure and no duress when the agreement was signed.

However, the court accepted the applicant's evidence that the respondent had torn up the agreement shortly after they moved into their new home, intending to terminate it.

Consequently, the court ruled that the agreement was no longer in effect and did not bind the parties at the date of separation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment seeking specific performance after the defendant breached an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

The defendant failed to close the transaction and was noted in default.

The court found the property was unique to the plaintiffs because it was within their budget in a rising real estate market and conveniently located near their workplaces.

The court granted specific performance but dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for incidental damages as it was not pleaded in the Statement of Claim.

The appellant, a claimant under the Walkerton Compensation Plan, appealed an arbitration decision awarding him $11,000 for economic losses related to the Walkerton E. coli water contamination.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness due to inadequate accommodation for his post-stroke limitations, ineffective assistance of counsel, and adjudicative bias.

He also challenged the arbitrator's credibility assessments and factual findings.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitrators had fulfilled their duty to accommodate, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the arbitrator's factual findings were reasonable and free of palpable and overriding error.

The plaintiff moved to strike the self-represented defendant's amended statement of defence for failure to pay two prior costs orders.

The court found that only the costs order made in the current proceeding could be relied upon to strike the pleading.

The defendant claimed impecuniosity but failed to provide sufficient financial evidence to support the claim.

The court granted the motion conditionally, ordering that the defence be struck unless the defendant pays the outstanding costs from the prior order and the current motion within 30 days.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault, sought to use Facebook messages between himself and the complainant at trial.

The messages had been provided to the police by the complainant and disclosed to the defence by the Crown.

The court held that the s. 278.1 regime does not apply to Crown disclosure, as the Crown's disclosure implies a waiver of privacy by the complainant.

Furthermore, the court found that the complainant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the messages, given they were voluntarily sent to the applicant, a former intimate partner, during an acrimonious period.

The messages were deemed not to be 'records' under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code.

The plaintiff moved for leave to appeal a costs decision of a Case Management Master.

The Master had set aside a noting in default and awarded costs to the defendants.

The plaintiff argued it was presumptively entitled to costs because setting aside the default was an indulgence.

The court rejected this argument, finding the plaintiff had acted unreasonably by noting the defendants in default despite knowing they were defending the action and had served their statement of defence.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking 23 heads of relief, primarily alleging that the applicant father breached the parenting time and therapy provisions of their Minutes of Settlement regarding their two adult children with disabilities.

The father brought a cross-motion to strike the mother's affidavit evidence under Rule 1(8.2) of the Family Law Rules, arguing it was inflammatory and irrelevant.

The court found that the father had not done enough to facilitate the parenting schedule for the younger child and ordered him to take specific affirmative steps to ensure compliance and support reunification therapy.

The father's motion to strike was dismissed as moot, as the impugned forms are presumptively inadmissible at trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 48.14 for an extension of time to set the action down for trial.

The action arose from a 2014-2015 sub-tenancy dispute.

The case had stalled since early 2017 because the plaintiff failed to answer undertakings from discoveries.

The court found the plaintiff's explanations for the delay—including the death of a principal, counsel's injury, and the COVID-19 pandemic—to be vague and unsatisfactory given the length of inactivity.

Presuming prejudice to the defendants due to the passage of time, the court dismissed the motion and dismissed the action for delay.

The plaintiff commenced an action for constructive dismissal against her former employer.

The defendants moved to stay the action under Rule 21.01(3) and s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, relying on an arbitration clause in the plaintiff's employment agreement.

The plaintiff argued the arbitration clause was invalid, unconscionable, and contracted out of minimum employment standards.

Applying the competence-competence principle, the court held that the arbitral tribunal must first determine the validity of the arbitration clause.

The action was stayed pending the arbitrator's determination of the jurisdictional challenge.

Following a long-term marriage, the court determined spousal support, equalization, retroactive support, and the treatment of post-separation increases in the payor's income.

The court held the recipient spouse had no resulting trust interest in a residence owned by her father, so sale proceeds from that property were excluded from her net family property and an equalization payment of $189,470.96 was ordered by pension rollover with tax gross-up.

On support, the court found entitlement was primarily non-compensatory, but with a small compensatory component arising from indirect contributions to the payor's career development, and held that some sharing of post-separation income increases was justified.

Ongoing support was fixed at $3,800 per month until pension rollover, retroactive adjustment from 2017 was ordered using a formula based on all pension income plus 35% of other income, and some double recovery from pension income was permitted due to ongoing hardship and ability to pay.

The applicant and respondent, former unmarried cohabitants, purchased a home together in 2001.

In 2002, the applicant transferred his 50% interest to the respondent.

After their relationship ended in 2013, the applicant sought a 50% interest in the property via resulting or constructive trust, or alternatively, damages for unjust enrichment based on his contributions to home renovations and the respondent's cleaning business.

The court dismissed all claims, finding the 2002 transfer was for valuable consideration, defeating the resulting trust claim.

The unjust enrichment claim failed because the applicant's room and board provided a juristic reason for his contributions, and he failed to prove the value of his labour or materials.

Claims for a joint family venture and conversion of personal property were also dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of defence and counterclaim in an action by the plaintiff bank to enforce loan agreements.

The proposed amendments sought to plead that all defendants suffered damages, add a claim for the tort of deceit, and expand pleadings regarding breach of honesty and good faith.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the amendments were statute-barred, an abuse of process, and untenable at law.

The court granted leave for all amendments, finding they either particularized existing claims or were based on newly discovered facts with a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The defendants were ordered to pay $1,050 plus HST for the costs of the plaintiff preparing an amended reply.