SCJ 2022

The plaintiff, a former Minister of State, brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused during the examination for discovery of the defendants, a lawyer and his law firm.

The defendants had refused to answer questions based on solicitor-client privilege and parliamentary privilege.

The court held that asserting privilege was not a collateral attack on a previous order refusing to strike the claim.

The court upheld the assertion of parliamentary privilege regarding testimony before a parliamentary committee.

However, the court found the assertion of solicitor-client privilege to be overbroad and ordered the defendants to answer certain questions that did not reveal privileged communications.

The offenders, two youthful first-time offenders, were convicted of firearm offences after acquiring a handgun while collecting drug debts.

One offender also pleaded guilty to dangerous driving after a brief police chase.

The Crown sought penitentiary sentences of 2.5 to 3 years.

The court found that the mandatory minimum sentence under s. 96(2) of the Criminal Code violated s. 12 of the Charter and struck it down.

Applying the restraint principle and noting the offenders' strong rehabilitative prospects and community support, the court imposed conditional sentences of two years less a day for both offenders.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for dangerous driving.

The trial judge had found that the appellant's vehicle was the same one observed speeding on Highway 8 and that he drove dangerously in the Goderich Courthouse Square.

On appeal, the court found that the trial judge erred in law by failing to consider other reasonable possibilities regarding the circumstantial identification of the vehicle on Highway 8.

Furthermore, the trial judge made an impermissible inference that the appellant had tailored his evidence to the Crown's case, which fatally flawed the credibility assessment.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The Children's Aid Society brought a status review application seeking an extended society care order for a three-year-old child who had been in foster care since birth.

The mother sought the child's return.

The court found the child remained in need of protection due to the mother's unresolved anger management issues, housing instability, and association with individuals involved in criminal activity.

Concluding that a supervision order would not adequately protect the child, the court ordered extended society care.

The court also granted limited supervised access to the mother and siblings, finding it to be in the child's best interests.

The applicant sought a declaration that a property transferred by the deceased mother to the respondent son was held in a resulting trust for the estate, and an order requiring the respondent to pass accounts.

The court found that the presumption of resulting trust was rebutted by evidence showing the mother intended to gift the property to the respondent, who had lived with and cared for her.

The request to pass accounts was dismissed as statute-barred and unfair due to an eight-year delay, though the respondent was ordered to provide a sworn statement of the deceased's assets at the time of death.

The applicant sought specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

The respondent vendor refused to close the transaction after realizing that the contract stipulated HST was 'included in' the purchase price, meaning she would net less than anticipated.

The respondent argued there was a lack of consensus ad idem and unilateral mistake.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the contract language unambiguous and the mistake to be the respondent's own error in judgment.

The court granted specific performance, holding that the property was unique in the context of a hot real estate market and damages would be inadequate.

The defendant Unifund brought a motion to strike the statement of defence of the third party for failing to attend an examination for discovery despite multiple notices and a prior court order.

Counsel for the third party argued they had been unable to contact their client.

The court criticized the delay and lack of effort to locate the third party, ordering counsel to retain an investigator and produce the third party for discovery by August 30, 2022, failing which counsel must move to be removed from the record and Unifund may renew its motion to strike.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to Unifund.

Following an 11-day trial where the plaintiffs were successful, the court determined the quantum and scale of costs.

The plaintiffs had made multiple offers to settle that were more favourable than the trial judgment.

Applying Rule 49.10(1) and Rule 57.01(1), the court awarded the plaintiffs costs on a substantial indemnity basis fixed at $724,850.49, noting the defendants' unreasonable positions during the litigation.

The father brought a motion to change seeking retroactive child support based on the mother's increased income.

The mother opposed and sought to impute a higher income to the father, arguing he used his business to pay personal expenses and deliberately underpaid himself.

The court found the father had unreported income and personal expenses paid through his business.

The court imputed the father's income at $125,000 per year for 2019-2021, resulting in the father owing the mother retroactive child support arrears.

The court also ordered the parties to share section 7 childcare expenses equally.

The applicant estate sought a preservation order to prevent the respondent mining company from dealing with a 1.5% net smelter return royalty interest.

The interest had escheated to the Crown after the corporate owner was dissolved in 1989, and was recently sold by the Public Guardian and Trustee to the respondent.

The applicant acknowledged lacking standing to challenge the sale without a special statute to revive the dissolved corporation, which the Legislature had already refused to pass.

The court dismissed the application, holding that Rule 45.01 does not permit a standalone application for a preservation order in contemplation of a future, possible lawsuit by a party that currently lacks standing.

The accused was tried on 15 counts of domestic violence-related offences, including sexual assault, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, and uttering threats against his former partner.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, ultimately rejecting the accused's testimony and accepting the complainant's evidence as truthful and compelling.

The accused was found guilty on 13 counts.

The offender pleaded guilty to fraud over $5000 and money laundering after operating a $29 million Ponzi scheme called Debit Direct.

He sold fake point-of-sale debit terminals to hundreds of investors and transferred the funds to the Dominican Republic.

The court sentenced the offender to 7 years in prison, less pre-sentence custody, and ordered $26.9 million in restitution along with a matching fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The accused, charged with manslaughter and trafficking following a fatal drug overdose, brought an O'Connor application seeking third-party records, including cell phone records and mental health treatment records of the deceased and a key Crown witness.

The court found that the mental health records did not meet the likely relevance threshold, as the request relied on stereotypical assumptions about drug users and mental illness rather than case-specific evidence.

The application for the cell phone records of the witness's mother was granted to proceed to the second stage of the O'Connor analysis, while the remaining requests were dismissed.

The accused was tried for two counts of sexual assault and one count of attempting to choke the complainant.

The case turned on the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the accused, both of whom had consumed significant amounts of alcohol during the weekend in question.

Applying the W.(D). framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence but found that the complainant's testimony contained significant inconsistencies and memory gaps regarding core events.

Consequently, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of all charges.

The applicants and respondent owned a lakefront property as tenants in common, with the applicants using their dwelling recreationally and the respondent using hers as a principal residence.

The applicants sought to sell their interest but alleged the respondent interfered with prospective purchasers.

The applicants brought an application under the Partition Act for the sale of the entire property.

The court found no malicious or vexatious intent by the applicants and concluded that the respondent would not suffer objective hardship amounting to oppression if the property were sold.

The application for the sale of the property was granted, with a reference directed for the conduct of the sale.

The offender was convicted of manslaughter following a jury trial for his role in a fatal shooting.

The court found that the offender was aware of the presence of a firearm and was a party to the offence under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code.

After weighing aggravating factors, including the use of a firearm, against mitigating factors, such as harsh pre-sentence custody conditions and rehabilitative potential, the court determined an appropriate sentence of 113.5 months.

After applying credit for pre-sentence custody, the offender was sentenced to 58 months' imprisonment.

The plaintiff acted as an agent in Korea for the defendant.

After their relationship deteriorated, the parties signed a Payment Agreement acknowledging outstanding commissions owed to the plaintiff.

The defendant partially paid but then ceased payments.

The plaintiff sued for the remaining balance.

The court found the Payment Agreement to be a binding contract and awarded the plaintiff USD $232,330.44.

The defendant's counterclaim for breach of fiduciary duty was dismissed due to a lack of evidence of damages.

The court limited pre-judgment interest to three years due to the plaintiff's unreasonable delay in bringing the matter to trial.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment seeking specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a cottage property.

The defendants failed to close the transaction, arguing the agreement was void due to unfulfilled conditions regarding severance under the Planning Act and uncertainty over rights of way.

The court found the agreement valid and binding, noting the defendants could not rely on their own failure to obtain the necessary severances to terminate the contract.

Finding the property uniquely suited to the plaintiffs' needs, the court granted summary judgment and ordered specific performance.

During a trial for sexual assault, the defence brought an application for a mistrial after the Crown disclosed unredacted text messages mid-trial.

The messages, between the complainant and a potential defence witness, had been previously withheld by the Crown on the basis of irrelevance.

The court found that the messages were relevant to the witness's credibility and should have been disclosed initially under the Crown's Stinchcombe obligations.

Concluding that the late disclosure impaired the accused's ability to make full answer and defence and that no other remedy could cure the prejudice, the court declared a mistrial.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial, the court found the accused guilty of fraud over $5,000 and possession of property obtained by crime arising from a multi-year scheme targeting Canada Post.

The evidence showed that fictitious businesses across Canada were created to obtain postal products on credit, have them shipped to virtual mailbox locations in southwestern Ontario, and then resell stamps at a discount.

Applying the fraud elements from Theroux and the circumstantial evidence approach in Villaroman, the court held that computer records, mailbox evidence, surveillance, IP data, invoices, and related documents proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused orchestrated the scheme and never intended to pay.

The court accepted that Canada Post was deprived of $234,763.31 and rejected the defence theory of legitimate business activity.