SCJ 2022

The plaintiff, a former employee of Torstar who signed a full and final release upon her dismissal in 2017, brought an action claiming that subsequent correspondence with the CEO in 2020 constituted a binding agreement to pay her compensation for alleged anti-black racism.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim.

The court granted the motion, finding it plain and obvious that the correspondence did not constitute an enforceable contract and the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

The statement of claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend.

The appellant pleaded guilty to several offences, including assault and assault with a weapon against his pregnant wife, and received a suspended sentence.

Facing certain deportation, he applied to extend the time to appeal his convictions and sentence, arguing his pleas were procedurally flawed and uninformed regarding immigration consequences, and alternatively sought a conditional discharge.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the procedural irregularity caused no prejudice, the appellant was fully informed of the immigration consequences before pleading guilty, and a conditional discharge would be contrary to the public interest given the serious domestic violence involved.

The applicant father brought a motion to change his child support obligations under the Inter-jurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002, citing a reduction in income and high travel costs to exercise parenting time.

The court found the father was not intentionally underemployed, as his job change was reasonable.

The court granted the father's claim for undue hardship due to unusually high access costs, reducing his ongoing child support obligations.

However, the court declined to rescind his child support arrears accrued prior to 2020, ordering them to be repaid at $100 per month.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of sexually assaulting a young woman after breaking into her university residence.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record of over 70 convictions, primarily for property offences including numerous break and enters.

The court found the offence to be a home invasion sexual assault, an aggravating factor, while noting the offender's recent efforts at rehabilitation as mitigating.

The court determined the appropriate global sentence range was 9 to 10 years, but credited the offender with 3 years already served for the related break and enter conviction, resulting in a sentence of 6 years imprisonment.

The applicants, who were arrested for robbery and firearms offences, brought a motion to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging breaches of their s. 10(b) right to counsel.

The police delayed the applicants' access to counsel for over five and a half hours without justification, and questioned one applicant before he could speak to a lawyer.

The court found serious violations of s. 10(b) that were aggravated by poor note-taking, failure to inform the applicants of the delay, and leaving one applicant partially undressed on the street.

Applying the Grant test, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and excluded the evidence.

In an action for malicious prosecution and negligence arising from fraud charges, the RBC defendants sought an order requiring the plaintiff's estate trustee to reattend personally to answer questions previously refused on discovery.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the defendants improperly contacted the court and that written answers would suffice.

The court found the defendants' communication was proper and ordered the estate trustee to reattend at his own expense, as follow-up questions would be necessary and a personal attendance would be more efficient than written answers.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding him incapable of consenting to a community treatment plan and antipsychotic medications.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the Board committed a palpable and overriding error.

The treating psychiatrist could not recall informing the appellant of the benefits and consequences of the proposed treatment during the assessment, meaning the presumption of capacity was not displaced.

Furthermore, the community treatment plan was fatally defective because it was signed before the appellant was examined.

These consolidated applications concerned a 100-acre farm property transferred under a distressed sale arrangement containing a rental agreement and an eight-year buyback provision.

The court found that the responding party, acting through his attorney/mandatary, obstructed and frustrated the moving party’s repeated efforts to exercise the contractual buyback right, and thereby breached the agreement.

The court held that the breach supported both contractual enforcement and a constructive trust, and granted a mandatory injunction requiring the transfer to proceed on terms equivalent to those due on May 31, 2021.

Although the court accepted that the occupancy arrangement was commercial in nature and that some lease breaches had been shown, it refused termination and related relief under the Commercial Tenancies Act as inequitable in the circumstances.

The plaintiffs, a minor hockey coach and a manager/trainer, were suspended by the defendant hockey associations.

They brought an action and later moved to amend their Statement of Claim to add allegations of breach of natural justice, defamation, intentional infliction of mental distress, and breach of contract.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendments failed to disclose reasonable causes of action.

Specifically, breach of natural justice is not a freestanding cause of action, the defamation claims lacked required particulars, the mental distress claims failed to plead flagrant conduct or specific intent, and the breach of contract claim lacked material facts.

The plaintiff brought an action for professional negligence against her former lawyers regarding their handling of a civil action.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and the defendants cross-moved for summary judgment and to strike the claim as an abuse of process.

The court dismissed both summary judgment motions due to credibility issues and the need for expert evidence.

The court also dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the action was not a collateral attack on the assessment officer's costs decision, nor did the plaintiff's abandoned appeal of the underlying judgment preclude her from bringing a civil action for solicitor negligence.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, two counts of assault, and uttering threats against his common law spouse and their son.

The Crown sought to admit cross-count evidence of discreditable conduct to provide context to the abusive relationship and explain the delay in reporting.

The court admitted the evidence, finding its probative value outweighed any prejudice.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as not credible and found the evidence of the spouse, children, and an independent witness to be reliable and consistent.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The moving party, the wife of the incapable person, brought a motion to set aside a 2019 ex parte Guardianship Order that appointed the incapable person's son as his sole guardian of property and person.

The court found that the original order was intended to be temporary and was granted based on allegations of missing funds and abandonment that were later admitted to be untrue.

The court set aside the Guardianship Order on grounds of procedural fairness and under Rule 59.06(2)(a) based on facts discovered after it was made.

However, the court temporarily stayed the setting aside of the order for 90 days to prevent a vacuum in the incapable person's care while the parties determine the validity of competing powers of attorney.

Following the successful summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiff's claim, the defendant Town of Hanover sought costs of $43,447.34.

The self-represented plaintiff opposed the costs award.

The court applied Rule 57.01, noting the defendant's unaccepted offer to settle for a dismissal without costs, the complexity of the motion, and the proportionality of the costs claimed.

The court awarded the defendant its full costs claimed.

The accused was charged with possession of crack cocaine, possession of crack cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime following the execution of a search warrant at a residence.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove constructive possession of drugs and cash found in a basement bedroom closet.

The court found the accused guilty of possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, relying on the presence of his wallet, mail, and male clothing in the room.

The court found the accused not guilty of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, but guilty of the lesser included offence of simple possession.

Following a family law trial regarding child support, vehicle ownership, and a restraining order, the court addressed costs.

The court found that the trial was unnecessarily long and financially disastrous for both parties, given their modest financial circumstances and the proximity of their settlement offers.

Success on the child support issue was divided, but the applicant was entirely successful in dismissing the respondent's claims regarding the vehicle and restraining order.

The court awarded the applicant $25,000 in costs for those specific issues.

The applicants brought an application seeking an accounting of their late mother's estate, alleging that significant funds were unaccounted for due to questionable transfers by the respondents, who acted as powers of attorney and estate trustees.

The respondents argued the application was barred by a prior consent judgment on a passing of accounts that concluded the estate litigation.

The court agreed with the respondents, finding that the applicants had commissioned a forensic accounting report prior to consenting to the judgment and that allowing the application to proceed would render the consent judgment pointless.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process and foreclosed by the prior judgment.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence, relied on ungrounded common-sense assumptions, misapplied the W.(D.) framework, and erred in analyzing mens rea.

The appeal centered on a sexual encounter where the complainant testified she revoked consent to anal intercourse, which the appellant ignored.

The Superior Court of Justice found no error in the trial judge's credibility findings, her application of the W.(D.) test, or her conclusion that the appellant had actual knowledge of the complainant's lack of consent.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, a passive minority shareholder in a closely-held printing business, brought an oppression application against the majority shareholder.

The applicant sought to force a buyout of his shares at fair market value, alleging he was excluded from decision-making and denied financial information.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had historically chosen not to be involved in the business and that the respondent had not frustrated any reasonable expectations.

The court concluded that the oppression remedy was an improper vehicle for resolving a simple dispute over share valuation.

The accused, charged with firearms offences and driving while suspended, had been detained for over 90 days, triggering an automatic detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The accused had a lengthy criminal record, including a history of fleeing the jurisdiction and breaching court orders.

The court found that the proposed release plan, which included house arrest and an ankle bracelet, was insufficient to mitigate the risks.

The court concluded that continued detention was necessary on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

The defendants (Trinity) moved for an order requiring the plaintiff (CSMI) to produce documents relating to a real estate development.

CSMI consented to production, but the National Capital Commission (NCC), a non-party, sought enhanced confidentiality protections for the documents.

The court rejected the NCC's proposed two-tier confidentiality order, finding it overbroad and unsupported by evidence demonstrating that the existing implied undertaking, deemed undertaking rule, and confidentiality protocol were insufficient.

The court granted the motion on the terms proposed by Trinity.