SCJ 2022

The applicants, charged with firearms and drug offences, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The trial was scheduled to conclude 41 months after charges were laid.

The court deducted 280 days as an exceptional circumstance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and 470 days as defence delay due to counsel unavailability when the Crown and court were ready.

The net delay was calculated at 17 months, well below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court matters.

The court found the delay was not markedly longer than it reasonably should have been and dismissed the application.

The defendant owner brought a motion for directions seeking to hold the proceeds of a statutory adjudication award in trust, rather than paying the co-defendant contractor, due to a perfected construction lien registered by the plaintiff subcontractor.

The owner argued that paying the award would expose him to paying twice.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to vary or stay the adjudicator's order under the Construction Act outside of a judicial review application.

The court emphasized the Act's prompt payment scheme, noting that the owner must pay the award and the contractor would hold the funds in trust for the subcontractor.

The parties, who were unmarried and had one child, disputed the date of cohabitation, the division of proceeds from a jointly owned home, spousal support, and the return of an engagement ring.

The court found the parties began cohabiting on May 10, 2017, when the applicant was added to the respondent's auto insurance.

The court held that the presumption of resulting trust applied to the jointly owned home, dividing the proceeds 73% to the respondent and 27% to the applicant based on their respective contributions.

The applicant was awarded needs-based spousal support, and was permitted to keep the engagement ring or return it for a $14,000 credit.

Following a focused hearing on a motion to change spousal support, the applicant sought $30,000 in costs.

The respondent argued for no costs due to divided success and her limited financial means.

The court found that while success was divided, the applicant was the more successful party and had made reasonable offers to settle.

The respondent's persistence in seeking compensatory support was deemed unreasonable.

Balancing the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including the respondent's limited ability to pay, the court ordered the respondent to pay $18,000 in costs to the applicant.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for assault arising from an altercation on a public transit bus.

The appellant claimed he was making a citizen's arrest after the complainant inadvertently bumped him with her knapsack.

The trial judge rejected this defence, finding the appellant used grossly excessive force and had no reasonable grounds for an arrest.

On appeal, the appellant raised new arguments, including Charter violations and claims that the complainant committed mischief, and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's findings of fact or sentence, and dismissed the motions to admit fresh evidence.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for settlement and fee approval in a certified class proceeding against the defendant developer regarding abortive purchases of hotel condominium units.

The court approved the $5.75 million settlement as fair and reasonable, noting it was a modest success given the litigation risks.

The court also approved class counsel's fee of $2.2 million, with $1.25 million payable immediately and a $950,000 holdback pending final distribution.

A motion by former, disqualified class counsel to approve a fee-sharing agreement with current class counsel was dismissed, as the former counsel had been disqualified, assumed no ongoing risk, and provided no services under the current retainer.

The plaintiff franchisee brought a motion for relief from forfeiture and an interlocutory injunction to reinstate a terminated franchise agreement and commercial sublease for a Williams Fresh Café location.

The franchisor had terminated the agreement after the plaintiff failed health audits, accrued significant debts, and closed the store.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, requiring a strong prima facie case because the plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction to enforce a month-to-month agreement with no renewal right.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages arising from an aborted real estate transaction.

The defendant failed to close the purchase of the plaintiff's home, alleging the plaintiff misrepresented the lot frontage.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the Agreement of Purchase and Sale required the purchaser to verify measurements and there was no evidence the frontage was materially significant to the defendant.

The court awarded the plaintiff damages for the difference in sale price and carrying costs, and ordered the deposit to be credited towards the damages.

The Applicants, a group of retail energy providers under CCAA protection, brought a motion seeking approval of a going-concern sale transaction to be implemented through a reverse vesting order (RVO).

The business is highly regulated and depends on numerous non-transferable licenses across multiple jurisdictions.

The court found that the RVO was the only viable structure to preserve the going-concern value of the business and maintain necessary regulatory approvals.

Applying the Soundair principles and section 36(3) of the CCAA, the court approved the transaction and granted the RVO, along with an order granting the Monitor enhanced powers to implement the transaction.

The applicant sisters brought an estate application against their brother, the respondent, alleging he misappropriated their late mother's funds while acting as her Power of Attorney for Property.

The mother suffered from dementia, and the respondent had moved into her home, taking control of her finances and co-mingling her money with his own.

The court found the respondent breached his fiduciary duties by failing to account for the funds and using them for his own family's benefit.

The court ordered the respondent removed as Estate Trustee, dismissed his claim for personal care compensation, and ordered significant deductions from his share of the estate to repay the misappropriated funds, occupation rent, and unaccounted chattels.

Two siblings, acting as co-Estate Trustees for their late father's estate, engaged in extensive litigation against each other, paralyzing the estate's administration.

The brother brought a motion to remove his sister as co-Estate Trustee and to appoint an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL).

The sister brought a cross-motion to strike the brother's counterclaim regarding the ownership of a corporate asset, arguing it was statute-barred.

The court declined to remove the sister as trustee on a paper record but appointed an ETDL due to the severe conflict of interest and hostility between the siblings.

The motion to strike the counterclaim was dismissed as there were triable issues regarding discoverability and the nature of the declaratory relief sought.

The plaintiff landlord brought an interim motion for the payment of rent pending the hearing of its action to evict the defendant tenants and recover arrears.

The self-represented tenants requested an adjournment on the day of the hearing, citing severe respiratory illness supported by doctors' notes.

Despite concerns about the tenants' history of delay tactics, the court reluctantly granted a brief, peremptory adjournment, ordering the tenants to pay $4,006.00 in partial rent prior to the return date.

The moving party (husband) sought to set aside consent orders regarding the validity of a 2017 Bangladeshi divorce, arguing his consent was vitiated by the responding party's (wife's) misrepresentation that she had not remarried.

The court set aside the consent orders, finding the wife had misrepresented her marital status.

Upon reviewing the evidence de novo, the court found that the 2017 Bangladeshi divorce was valid, not obtained by fraud, and should be recognized in Canada.

Consequently, the wife's claims for spousal support were dismissed, and her claim for equalization of net family property was barred by the limitation period.

The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant, applied for leave to continue three existing actions and to rescind the vexatious litigant order.

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds for the proceedings and that continuing them would be an abuse of process, noting a history of unpaid costs orders and failure to advance litigation.

The court also declined to rescind the vexatious litigant order, finding the applicant had not learned from past mistakes and continued to exhibit abusive litigation behaviour.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant brought a garnishment hearing to enforce a 2011 Quebec family law judgment against the respondent.

The applicant sought to reduce the statutory wage exemption under the Wages Act, hold the garnishee companies liable for the full judgment debt, and compel further corporate productions.

The court reduced the respondent's wage exemption from 80 percent to 60 percent due to his conduct in evading payment.

The court also ordered one garnishee company to pay 40 percent of management fees it had paid to the respondent's alter ego corporation.

The court declined to hold the garnishee companies liable for the full debt, finding they had not concealed income or filed void statements, but ordered limited documentary production regarding the respondent's shares in a holding company.

The applicant apartment association applied to quash City of Toronto By-laws 1121-2019 and 1750-2019, which required apartment owners to provide emergency accommodations to displaced tenants and imposed a full cost recovery fee on landlords if the City provided those services.

The court held that the City lacked the legislative authority to require landlords to provide emergency social services regardless of the cause of the building becoming uninhabitable.

The court quashed the specific provisions imposing the fee and the requirement to provide emergency social services, while upholding the remainder of the by-laws.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the date of arrest to the anticipated end of the trial was 50.5 months.

After deducting 1.25 months for defence delay, the net delay was 49.25 months, well above the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The Crown argued that the delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic should be deducted as an exceptional circumstance.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the trial could not have proceeded during the pandemic period in any event due to the Crown's failure to provide timely disclosure.

The application was granted and the charges were stayed.

Following a successful motion by the landlord to terminate a commercial lease and obtain immediate possession due to over $1 million in rent arrears, the court determined costs.

The landlord sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis pursuant to the lease terms and due to the tenant's unreasonable conduct, including advancing meritless arguments and refusing to approve the draft order.

The court awarded the landlord $45,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis, payable forthwith.

The applicants sought damages for the respondent's refusal to honour agreements granting them 750,000 stock options.

The respondent argued the applicants did not meet the eligibility requirements of its stock option plan.

The court found that the respondent's board of directors had validly approved the option grants and that the respondent's subsequent cancellation of the options defeated the applicants' reasonable expectations, constituting oppression under the Business Corporations Act.

The court awarded damages based on the value of the options, but declined to award punitive damages.

The applicant insurer and respondent insureds were engaged in a statutory appraisal process under the Insurance Act to determine the value of flood damage to the insureds' home.

The insurer brought an application to inspect the property and to remove the insureds' appraiser for allegedly refusing to act.

The insureds brought a cross-application seeking to compel the insurer's appraiser to identify specific disagreements and for a declaration regarding the determination of actual cash value.

The court held that the insurer retained its contractual right to inspect the property and ordered an inspection as directed by the umpire.

The court declined to remove the insureds' appraiser, finding his conduct unprofessional but not amounting to a refusal to act.

The insureds' requests were dismissed, as the umpire has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the appraisal procedure and had not exceeded his jurisdiction.