SCJ 2021

The mother brought a motion to change seeking retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses.

The father had unilaterally reduced his child support payments and failed to provide annual financial disclosure, despite earning a six-figure income.

The court ordered retroactive child support and section 7 expenses, finding the father's conduct blameworthy and noting that his prior refusal to contribute made advance consultation for expenses meaningless.

The court also rejected the father's argument that support should be terminated due to his estrangement from the adult children, finding insufficient evidence that the children unilaterally and unjustifiably rejected him.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and firearms offences following a drive-by shooting.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the firearm used and the getaway vehicle.

The court found that while the accused was involved as the driver of the vehicle, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the requisite mens rea for party liability to attempted murder, as there was insufficient evidence he knew the shooter intended to kill the victim.

The accused was acquitted of attempted murder but convicted of the firearms offences.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed by an order of the Registrar.

The defendants brought a motion in writing to fix costs, seeking $42,740.56 on a substantial indemnity scale based on an unaccepted formal offer to settle.

Despite multiple extensions, the self-represented plaintiff failed to deliver responding materials.

The court found the defendants were completely successful and the offer met the requirements of Rule 49.10(1).

Costs were fixed at $36,000, reflecting partial indemnity up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The accused brought a pre-trial motion seeking a stay of proceedings, alleging a violation of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from the laying of charges to the anticipated end of trial was 99 months.

The court found that the accused had actively evaded arrest in Central America for over four years, characterizing this pre-extradition period as defence delay.

Further deductions were made for defence-requested adjournments and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The net delay was calculated at 24 months, which fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The motion for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The plaintiff tenant brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that it validly exercised its option to renew a commercial lease for a school premises.

The defendant landlord brought a cross-motion seeking a declaration that the lease was not validly renewed.

The court found that partial summary judgment was appropriate and held that the tenant had provided explicit and unequivocal written notice of its intention to renew via email.

The court also found that the landlord had waived strict compliance with the lease's notice delivery requirements by communicating via email, and alternatively, the tenant would be entitled to relief from forfeiture.

The plaintiff's motion was granted and the lease was declared extended to August 31, 2025.

This trial concerned governance of an unincorporated association, disputed terminations of membership, and control over a 16-acre association property.

The court held it had jurisdiction to intervene because the dispute engaged proprietary and contractual rights connected to the property, distinguishing the voluntary-association principles in Aga.

The purported termination of members and subsequent efforts by the 2010 board to control or sell the property were found inconsistent with the association's Constitution, unsupported by reliable evidence, and beyond the board's expired mandate.

The court found there were no current members because dues had not been paid for years, dismissed the defendants' claims in full, and ordered a process for new or restored memberships, an AGM, election of a new executive board, and a temporary prohibition on transfer or encumbrance of the property pending completion of that process.

In an action for fraud and breach of contract arising from a relationship between the plaintiff and a former escort, the parties brought motions to resolve various discovery disputes.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce notes used as an aide memoire during his examination for discovery.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to disclose documents relating to his separation agreement, finding that he had waived solicitor-client privilege by putting his state of mind regarding the transfer of funds in issue.

The defendant's request to examine the plaintiff's wife as a non-party witness was dismissed as unnecessary for the pending motion.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, breach of a weapons prohibition, and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown and defence agreed that the appropriate sentence before pre-sentence custody credit was seven years.

The court considered the exceptionally harsh conditions of the offender's pre-sentence custody, including frequent lockdowns and COVID-19 restrictions at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

Applying the principles from Duncan and Marshall, the court reduced the otherwise appropriate sentence by two years to account for these harsh conditions, resulting in a five-year sentence.

After applying enhanced credit for time served, the offender was sentenced to 98 days going forward.

The father brought a motion for summary judgment seeking parenting and child support orders.

The mother consented to the parenting terms but opposed child support, claiming undue hardship due to her limited income and having three other children in her full-time care.

The court granted joint decision-making responsibility, with the father having final authority if disputes cannot be resolved.

The court dismissed the mother's undue hardship claim due to insufficient evidence regarding her household standard of living and ordered her to pay table amount child support and arrears based on her most recent line 150 income.

The plaintiffs sought leave to bring a motion for an interlocutory injunction against their neighbours regarding a disputed boat ramp and dock, after having already set the action down for trial.

The court denied leave, finding no substantial or unexpected change in circumstances since the action was set down, as the complained-of conduct was already detailed in the statement of claim.

In obiter, the court noted that even if leave had been granted, the injunction would have been dismissed under the RJR MacDonald test because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo.

The appellant children's aid society appealed an order granting the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness disclosure of child protection records.

The Minister sought the records to make submissions under s. 50(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act regarding a pending removal order against the respondent mother.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Minister had a legitimate interest in determining whether a genuine lis existed in the child protection proceedings, and that the Ontario Court of Justice had jurisdiction under the Family Law Rules to order disclosure to a non-party to ensure a fair procedure.

The court also rejected arguments that the motion judge demonstrated bias during a case conference.

The defendants, NSR Toronto and Dapeng Wang, brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claims against them for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, oppression, and conspiracy.

The court found that neither moving defendant was a party to the underlying contract, precluding the breach of contract and derivative claims.

The court also held that the oppression remedy under the OBCA did not apply to a BC corporation, and the conspiracy claims lacked the requisite clarity and precision.

The motion was granted, and the claims against the moving defendants were struck without leave to amend.

The applicant sought the removal of the respondents as trustees of a family trust, alleging mismanagement, failure to account, and bad faith.

The trustees had made over $3 million in undocumented, unsecured loans to themselves and their children, failed to pass accounts for over a decade, and attempted to dictate the terms of the applicant's will in exchange for continuing his monthly trust payments.

The court found that the trustees' conduct was so unreasonable that no honest or fair-dealing trustee would have acted in that way, and that they failed to act impartially despite having absolute discretion.

The application was granted, the trustees were removed, and an institutional trustee was appointed in their place.

The applicant, charged with human trafficking and prostitution-related offences, brought a pre-trial application challenging the constitutionality of sections 286.3 and 286.4 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant relied on a recent Superior Court decision that declared the provisions unconstitutional.

The court declined to follow the prior decision, finding it plainly wrong in its conclusion that Parliament allowed the sale of sexual services.

Instead, the court followed other concurrent decisions upholding the provisions, ruling that the trial would proceed and the constitutional challenge would be fully litigated after the evidence is called.

The plaintiff brought a motion to add three additional representative plaintiffs during a certification hearing for a class action regarding COVID-19 business interruption insurance claims.

The court found that the original plaintiff, Nordik Windows Inc., had an arguable cause of action and was a suitable representative plaintiff.

The court also found that the three proposed additional plaintiffs—Hangar9 Studios Inc., Cash and Carry Inc., and Real Food for Real Kids Inc.—had viable causes of action and met the requirements under s. 5(1)(e) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The class action was fully certified with all four as representative plaintiffs.

Following a decision permanently staying the plaintiffs' second action for abuse of process, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity, finding that the defendants' Rule 49 offer was not beaten and the plaintiffs' fraud claim was never adjudicated.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, reducing the requested amounts by 25% to account for issues that were deferred to a potential future motion.

Costs were fixed at $34,608 for the main group of defendants and $13,722 for Dr. Kajdehi.

The applicant tenant sought a declaration that it validly renewed its commercial lease or, alternatively, relief from forfeiture.

The tenant failed to provide written notice of renewal within the time required by the lease.

The court found that while the respondent landlord initially waived strict compliance during negotiations, it validly revoked that waiver by providing reasonable notice and a deadline for compliance.

The tenant failed to make diligent efforts to comply with the new deadline.

Consequently, the court held the tenant did not validly renew the lease and was not entitled to relief from forfeiture.

The defendants brought a motion to impose a discovery plan in a Simplified Rules motor vehicle accident claim.

The parties disagreed on whether the plaintiff should be required to produce certain medical and employment records prior to oral examinations, and who should bear the upfront cost of obtaining them.

The court ordered the plaintiff to use her best efforts to obtain and disclose the disputed productions prior to discoveries, finding them relevant and proportionate.

The court also held that under Rule 76.03, the plaintiff is presumptively required to obtain and disclose these documents at her own expense.

The respondent brought an urgent motion to set aside an order for an undefended trial and to prevent the applicant from moving to Cambridge with the children.

The applicant brought a cross-motion seeking permission to move.

The court found that the applicant had not provided proper notice of the relocation under the new provisions of the Divorce Act, and there was insufficient evidence to determine if the move was in the children's best interests.

The court dismissed the request to move for now, deferring the issue to the upcoming trial.

The court also refused to set aside the undefended trial order but allowed the respondent to participate if he files a complete Form 15B Answer.

The plaintiffs brought an action for negligent misrepresentation against the defendants, alleging that steam generators purchased for resale in the Former Soviet Union failed to perform as represented in promotional brochures.

The defendants counterclaimed for unpaid invoices.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' action, finding it was statute-barred under the former Limitations Act because the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of the equipment's deficiencies well outside the six-year limitation period.

The court also found no detrimental reliance on the brochures.

The defendants' counterclaim was dismissed for lack of proof.