SCJ 2022

The moving parties, the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS), brought a motion for an interim injunction to prohibit the responding party, the Carleton University Students' Association (CUSA), from proceeding with a referendum regarding disassociation from CFS.

CFS argued the referendum violated its bylaws, which dictate a specific process and timeline for such votes.

CUSA contended the referendum was merely consultative and non-binding.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a genuine issue to be adjudicated and that proceeding with the referendum would cause irreparable harm by subverting the regular process to which all members are bound.

The court granted the mandatory order prohibiting the referendum.

The offender pleaded guilty to arson with disregard for human life, uttering death threats, break and enter, and disobeying a court order, all committed against his separated spouse.

The court considered the offender's mental health issues and guilty pleas as mitigating factors, but weighed them against the highly aggravating domestic context and the planned nature of the arson.

The court imposed a global sentence of 77 months in custody, reduced to 23 months net after pre-sentence custody credit, followed by three years of probation.

The plaintiff successfully defended a motion brought by the defendant to dismiss her Charter action regarding exclusion from health care coverage.

The plaintiff sought costs of the motion on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $181,666.71, or alternatively on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $121,111.14.

The court found no justification for substantial indemnity costs and awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale.

Applying the principle of reasonableness and the factors under Rule 57.01(1), the court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $92,000 all inclusive.

The Court-appointed Monitor in the CCAA proceedings of Laurentian University brought an unopposed motion for approval of its reports, activities, and professional fees.

The Court applied the factors from Confectionately Yours and found the requested fees for the Monitor, EY FAAS, and the Monitor's counsel to be fair and reasonable, given the novel and complex nature of the proceedings.

The Court approved the fees, disbursements, and the Monitor's reports.

The plaintiff previously had his notice of garnishment against the defendant's spouse struck out.

The plaintiff subsequently accepted an offer to settle the costs of the garnishment proceedings for $58,958.85 but later reneged, demanding the defendant's debt be paid first.

The garnishee brought a motion under Rule 49.09 to enforce the settlement.

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff had no basis to claim unfairness against the garnishee, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the settlement amount plus costs of the motion.

The parties were engaged in a complex international custody dispute over their child, with the father seeking the child's return to Oman and the mother seeking to remain in Ontario.

The parties filed over 4,000 pages of materials, including conflicting expert reports on Omani law and disputed allegations of domestic violence.

The court declined to determine the jurisdictional issues on a paper record, finding that the significant credibility issues and factual disputes required viva voce evidence.

The court directed a trial of an issue to determine jurisdiction and related matters.

The moving party, Rogers Communications Canada Inc., sought to set aside previous orders dismissing its motion for security for costs against the responding party, Active Security and Cable Inc., on the basis of fraud or newly discovered facts under Rule 59.06(2)(a).

Rogers alleged that an erroneous payment of over $876,000 and other newly discovered facts regarding Active Security's financial status warranted setting aside the orders.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the new evidence would not have likely altered the original decision, which relied primarily on a large CRA debt.

Furthermore, Rogers failed to prove fraudulent concealment and had made a tactical decision not to raise the new evidence during the appeal process.

The offender was convicted of criminal negligence causing death and failing to remain at the scene of an accident after a trailer he negligently attached to a van detached, striking and killing a cyclist.

The offender saw the collision but drove away.

The court weighed the devastating impact on the victim's family, the offender's high moral blameworthiness, and the need for denunciation and general deterrence.

The court imposed a total sentence of 6 years in custody, reduced by Summers, Marshall, and Downes credits for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in 1 year and 1 month left to serve, plus a 10-year driving prohibition.

The plaintiff sued the defendant municipality for injuries sustained after tripping on beach stones scattered on a public sidewalk.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the sidewalk was not in an unreasonable state of non-repair and that it had no knowledge of the stones.

The court granted the defendant's motion, finding that the presence of the stones did not constitute an unreasonable state of non-repair as they could be easily avoided by a person exercising ordinary care.

Furthermore, the court held that the municipality was exempt from liability under s. 44(3)(a) of the Municipal Act because it did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, about the stones on the sidewalk.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a $9,750,000 settlement in a medical malpractice action arising from severe birth injuries sustained by the minor plaintiff.

The court reviewed the proposed distribution, including damages, costs, and legal fees calculated under a Contingent Fee Agreement.

Finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the minor plaintiff, and the reduced contingency fee of 27.5% appropriate, the court approved the settlement and the related guardianship application.

The accused, a trucking dispatcher, was found guilty of importing 50 kilograms of cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine.

The Crown sought 13 to 15 years imprisonment, while the defence sought 9 to 12 years.

The court considered the significant quantity of cocaine, the accused's role in directing an unknowing driver, and his lack of a criminal record.

The court sentenced the accused to 12 years for importing and 9 years for conspiracy, to be served concurrently, less 104 days of pre-sentence and Downes credit, resulting in a net sentence of 11 years and 261 days.

The applicant, a cyber-insurer, sought relief from forfeiture under s. 462.42 of the Criminal Code to recover funds paid out to two insured victims of a ransomware attack.

The offender's cryptocurrency had been seized and forfeited.

The court held that the insurer had a valid interest in the forfeited property limited to the amount of Bitcoin paid as ransom by one of the victims, which had been erroneously omitted from the sentencing restitution order.

The court dismissed the claim for further restitution and for relief from forfeiture regarding other insurance payouts, such as consultation fees and lost profits, finding they did not constitute an interest in the specific forfeited property.

The defendant, Bayer Inc., brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim in a product liability action concerning an allegedly defective contraceptive device.

The court found that the claim consisted of bare allegations and conclusory statements without pleading the necessary material facts to support a cause of action in negligence.

The motion was granted, and the statement of claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend, as the court was not persuaded that the foundational deficiencies could be cured.

The plaintiff successfully defended summary judgment motions brought by multiple defendants across several actions.

While costs were resolved with most defendants, the plaintiff sought costs against the defendants Helden and 131 Ontario for their involvement in the dismissed motions in the s. 38 BIA Action and the Copyright Action.

The court declined to award costs for the Copyright Action due to the defendants' limited involvement.

For the s. 38 BIA Action, the court found the defendants were passive participants who 'tagged along' with the primary moving parties.

The court apportioned 25% of the plaintiff's costs for that motion to these defendants, fixing the amount at $9,500 on a partial indemnity scale.

During a trial of an issue on damages arising from an application, the applicant objected to numerous pieces of viva voce evidence introduced by the respondents.

The court had previously directed that the damages trial proceed on the closed record as it existed when the application was initially argued.

The court applied a bright-line test, ruling that any evidence not actually found in the underlying application record was inadmissible to prevent trial by ambush.

The court sustained the majority of the applicant's objections, rejecting the respondents' arguments that the new evidence was merely a permissible amplification of the existing record or a necessary response to the applicant's expert.

The accused was tried for aggravated assault and weapons offences following a stabbing at a sports bar.

The incident was captured on surveillance video, showing a man wearing a Nirvana baseball cap striking the victim in the face with a knife-like object.

The victim, who was unavailable for trial, had testified at the preliminary inquiry that he was stabbed by a different person on the stairs.

The court admitted the victim's preliminary inquiry evidence but rejected it as implausible and contradicted by the video.

The court also admitted prior acquaintance recognition evidence from a police officer who identified the accused as the man in the video.

The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the attacker and found him guilty on all counts.

The midwife and physician defendants moved to vary a previous order requiring the plaintiffs to undergo independent medical examinations involving genetic testing.

The variation sought to change the designated laboratory from GeneDX to Blueprint Genetics and extend the deadline, as GeneDX no longer performed testing for legal cases.

The plaintiffs agreed to the change but requested a condition that the laboratory's reports comply with Rules 33.06 and 53.03(2.1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the motion to vary the laboratory and deadline, but declined to impose the requested condition, finding that the rules apply to examining health practitioners and experts intended to be called at trial, not to the laboratory conducting the tests.

The respondent husband brought an interim motion to stay or reduce his $13,000 monthly spousal support obligation and stay enforcement of arrears pending the hearing of his motion to change.

The husband argued his income had significantly decreased due to selling his business following a cancer diagnosis.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the husband established a prima facie material change in circumstances, he failed to demonstrate hardship as he could pay support from his investments, and he came to court with unclean hands due to his deliberate prior non-compliance with the support order.

The condominium corporation brought a motion to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the plaintiffs' claims against it, which had previously been stayed in favour of arbitration.

The plaintiffs opposed the appointment, arguing they had not commenced an arbitration and could not be forced to act as plaintiffs.

The court granted the motion and appointed an arbitrator, noting that the condominium corporation was entitled to push forward with the claims made against it to clear its name, and that the arbitrator would determine the process.

The self-represented appellant, an OPCA litigant, was convicted of failing to appear in court.

During his trial, the judge excluded him from the courtroom twice due to his obstructionist and pseudo-legal behaviour, invoking s. 650(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.

After the Crown closed its case, the trial judge immediately proceeded to find the appellant guilty without offering him the opportunity to make full answer and defence under s. 650(3).

On appeal, the Superior Court found that while the exclusion was justified, the failure to offer the appellant the opportunity to present a defence constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.