SCJ 2022

The plaintiff brought a motion for civil contempt against the defendant for failing to comply with a previous court order that required the defendant to remove defamatory social media posts, refrain from further defamation, and publish a retraction.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the order was clear and unequivocal, the defendant had actual knowledge of it, and the defendant intentionally breached all three directives.

The court found the defendant in contempt and scheduled a second-stage hearing for sentencing, giving the defendant an opportunity to purge her contempt in the interim.

The defendant moved for a stay of proceedings or an indefinite adjournment of the trial pending a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) Right to Sue Application.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff's claim might be barred under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant had delayed raising the defence for years, had previously represented that the WSIAT application would not delay the trial, and that an adjournment would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiff who was ready for trial.

The plaintiff sought costs of a motion necessitated by the defendant's failure to pay a prior costs order.

The defendant had stopped payment on a cheque and indicated no intention to pay voluntarily.

The court found the defendant's conduct reprehensible and awarded the plaintiff costs of the motion on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $14,105.44.

The accused, charged with importing cocaine, brought a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the Crown's case.

The accused argued there was no evidence he caused his suitcase to clear customs or intended to import the drugs, as he was merely transiting through Canada to London.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the actus reus of importing commences when drugs cross the border into Canada, and the mens rea requires only an intention to bring the drugs into Canadian territory, not an intention to clear customs.

The court concluded there was sufficient evidence for a properly instructed jury to find the accused guilty.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for the immediate return of the parties' 12-year-old child after the respondent father unilaterally withheld the child following a summer visit.

The father had also commenced proceedings in Belleville.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was in Halton, stayed the Belleville proceedings, and ordered the immediate return of the child to the mother's care, noting the father's inappropriate conduct in alienating the child and making unilateral parenting decisions.

The moving party, Eacom Timber Corporation, brought a motion to strike a counterclaim against it on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The responding parties sought contribution and indemnity from Eacom for amounts they might owe under equipment leases, alleging Eacom wrongfully terminated a related contract.

The court found no reasonable cause of action because there was no tort alleged and no contractual provision requiring Eacom to indemnify the responding parties.

The court struck the counterclaim and denied leave to amend, noting the responding parties had already claimed the same damages in a separate outstanding action against Eacom.

The applicant students sought declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against the respondent university's COVID-19 Vaccination Policy, arguing that the collection of proof of vaccination violated s. 38(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

The court found that the university's broad statutory powers authorized the Policy as a 'lawfully authorized activity' and that the collection of proof of vaccination was 'necessary' to properly administer and enforce the mandate.

The application was dismissed.

The defendants were successful in obtaining a temporary stay of the Ontario action and sought costs of the motion on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff argued that costs should follow the cause and be awarded upon final disposition, or that the parties should bear their own costs because the defendants were only partially successful.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding the defendants were the successful parties and entitled to costs payable forthwith.

Costs were fixed at $23,687.55 on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff, a contractor, sued the defendant homeowner for unpaid contracting fees of $35,729.63 for building a log home.

The defendant counterclaimed against the contractor and the log home kit supplier for $124,203.30, alleging breach of contract due to delays and construction deficiencies.

The court found that the defendant homeowner, who acted as his own general contractor, was responsible for the delays and had wrongfully repudiated the contract by locking the contractor out of the site.

The court granted the plaintiff's claim for the unpaid balance and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.

The proposed intervenors, who are 40% shareholders of the respondent corporation, brought a motion for leave to intervene in applications concerning the management and interests of a residential property.

They alleged that a settlement reached by the respondent's representative was done without their required consent under a unanimous shareholders agreement.

The applicants objected based on the indoor management rule.

The court granted the motion to intervene, finding that the proposed intervenors had an interest in the proceeding and could be prejudiced by the outcome.

The plaintiffs brought a medical negligence action against various doctors, nurses, and a hospital following a surgery to treat severe nerve damage sustained in a snowmobile accident.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The plaintiffs failed to provide any admissible expert evidence to establish a breach of the standard of care or causation, whereas the defendants provided uncontradicted expert evidence supporting the care provided.

The court granted the summary judgment motions and dismissed the action against the moving defendants, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The defendant employer moved for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action and the plaintiff employee brought a cross-motion for summary judgment.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, fixed reasonable notice at 24 months for a 28-year retail management employee, and rejected the employer’s mitigation defence despite a delayed job search, given the pandemic, the employee’s depression, and extensive later applications.

The court further held that the employer breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing in the manner of dismissal by escorting the employee out, presenting a misleading post-termination offer, failing to comply with statutory lump-sum payment obligations, and issuing an untimely and inaccurate record of employment.

Damages were awarded for notice, replacement benefits, pension contributions, moral damages, and punitive damages.

The applicant mother brought a motion to lift the suspension of her in-person parenting time and to order 50-50 parenting time.

The court had previously suspended her parenting time due to chronic, unsubstantiated allegations of abuse against the respondent father.

Shortly after her first supervised electronic visit, the mother again called the police on the father based on a two-word text message from the child, resulting in another unfounded investigation.

The court dismissed the mother's motion and ordered a complete suspension of all contact between the mother and the child for three months.

The self-represented Indigenous offender was sentenced for discharging a restricted firearm, possessing a loaded restricted firearm, and possessing a firearm while prohibited.

The offences occurred while the offender was on parole and involved firing multiple shots from a vehicle in a public place.

The court weighed the serious aggravating factors, including a lengthy criminal record and prior firearms prohibitions, against mitigating factors such as a difficult childhood, efforts at rehabilitation, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

A global sentence of 7 years was imposed, which was reduced to approximately 2.6 years of net additional custody after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, Charter breaches, and harsh lockdown conditions.

The plaintiffs brought a motion requiring the defendants, as Estate Trustees, to pass the accounts.

After six adjournments, the plaintiffs requested a further deferral to address unanswered questions.

The court declined to prolong the matter, noting the depletion of estate assets, and dismissed the motion on a without prejudice basis.

The plaintiffs also consented to dismiss the claim against one defendant.

The court awarded costs of $5,100 for the dismissed claim and $16,156.27 for the motion to the defendants, payable forthwith by the plaintiffs.

Sentencing for repeated sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching involving a young child abused by a parental figure in the family home over an extended period.

The court applied the sentencing principles in the Criminal Code, including ss. 718, 718.01, 718.1, and 718.2, and considered Gladue factors arising from the offender’s Indigenous background, intergenerational trauma, poverty, addiction, and personal history of sexual abuse.

Relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s direction in Friesen, the court held that denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the victim’s age, the repeated abuse, the breach of trust, and the serious actual and potential harm.

A global sentence of six years was imposed, together with ancillary orders, and the victim fine surcharge was waived.

The moving party, previously declared a vexatious litigant, sought leave under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to bring a third-party claim for professional negligence against a law firm and a financing corporation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed claims duplicated past legal actions, had already been determined to be without merit by other courts, and constituted an attempt to re-litigate matters.

Following a successful application to terminate a tenancy and evict the respondents for unpaid rent, the applicants sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The respondents failed to deliver costs submissions.

The court found that the respondents' conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous behaviour required for an elevated costs award.

Costs were awarded to the applicants on a partial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive amount of $9,000.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $35,747.55 following cross-motions regarding parenting arrangements, mobility, and daycare.

The applicant argued entitlement to enhanced costs because he served three offers to settle that were as favourable or less favourable than the final order, pursuant to Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The respondent argued no costs should be ordered as she litigated in good faith.

The court found the applicant was entitled to full indemnity costs for the issues of parenting time and mobility from the date of his March 1, 2022 offers.

Considering proportionality and the reasonable expectations of the parties, the court fixed costs payable by the respondent to the applicant at $25,000.

The applicants brought an application to pass over the respondent as the Estate Trustee of the deceased's estate.

The court granted the order, appointing one of the applicants as the new Estate Trustee without security.

The court also granted the new Estate Trustee broad powers to compel the production of the deceased's financial, legal, and medical records, waiving any applicable privileges.

Furthermore, the respondent was ordered to deliver all estate records and was restrained from dissipating or encumbering any estate property.