SCJ 2022

The plaintiff, YMCA, brought an ex parte motion to amend its Statement of Claim, obtain a Mareva injunction, and issue Certificates of Pending Litigation against multiple defendants.

The plaintiff alleged it was the victim of a $2.2 million fraud involving a government training program, where an employee conspired with various training companies to process fraudulent applications and receive kickbacks.

The court granted the amendment to the pleadings and issued the Mareva injunction against all defendants except one, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud and a real risk of asset dissipation.

The court also granted Certificates of Pending Litigation for properties where the plaintiff traced the stolen funds, but denied it for a property purchased before the fraud occurred.

Following the dismissal of the respondent father's motion regarding jurisdiction and the return of the children to the UAE, the applicant mother sought full indemnity costs.

The court awarded the mother $45,000 in costs on an elevated scale, finding that the father engaged in bad faith, failed to comply with court orders, withheld crucial documents regarding foreign custody proceedings, and ignored reasonable offers to settle.

The applicant, who was not a suspect in a drug trafficking investigation, had her apartment searched after police observed a suspect entering and leaving the building.

The police obtained a search warrant for the applicant's apartment, where they found a large quantity of drugs.

The applicant brought a motion to quash the search warrant and exclude the evidence under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable grounds to believe the suspect had taken drugs into the applicant's apartment, rendering the search unreasonable under s. 8.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the serious breach of the applicant's privacy rights warranted the exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2).

The parties in a high-conflict divorce sought a determination on decision-making authority, parenting time, and child support for their two daughters.

The court granted the mother final decision-making authority due to the parties' inability to communicate effectively and the father's ongoing anger and trust issues.

A 7/7 shared parenting schedule with a midweek visit was ordered to provide stability and reduce exchanges.

Child support payable by the father was reduced by half to $295.50 monthly, as the mother chose not to work while on maternity leave with a new child, and her new partner earned a significant income.

Following a successful application under the Hague Convention for the return of a wrongfully removed child, the applicant sought full recovery costs and expenses.

The respondent had failed to comply with the court's return order and disappeared with the child in France.

The court found the respondent's conduct to be in bad faith and unreasonable.

The applicant was awarded full recovery costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and necessary expenses under Article 26 of the Hague Convention, totaling $40,413.

The moving party bank brought a motion for an interlocutory Mareva injunction against the responding parties, a group of corporate entities and their sole director, who had obtained over $4.5 million in COVID-19 relief loans.

The bank discovered the corporate entities were previously dissolved and revived shortly before applying for the loans, and that the loan proceeds were diverted to personal investment accounts rather than used for eligible business expenses.

The court found the bank established a strong prima facie case of a fraudulent scheme and a real risk of asset dissipation.

The motion for a Mareva injunction was granted, and costs were awarded to the bank on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff, a party under disability who suffered a traumatic brain injury after being struck by a car as a pedestrian, sought court approval of a proposed settlement in his tort and accident benefits claims.

The court reviewed the proposed contingency fee agreement and found it was not reasonable, reducing the fees to 25% for the tort action and 15% for the accident benefits claim.

The court also declined to order the settlement funds be paid as a lump sum, directing counsel to obtain structure options to protect the vulnerable plaintiff.

The applicant brought a motion to find the respondent mother in contempt for failing to comply with a prior court order requiring their two teenage daughters to return to in-person schooling.

The respondent admitted non-compliance, citing the children's refusal and her own beliefs aligned with a religious organization during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Bouchard v. Sgovio, the court declined to make an immediate contempt finding, instead utilizing its broad enforcement powers under Family Law Rule 1(8) to order the respondent to take specific steps to enroll the children for the upcoming school year.

The contempt motion was adjourned to monitor compliance.

The applicant mother sought retroactive child support, retroactive section 7 expenses, and ongoing child support at an uncontested trial.

The respondent father had a history of non-compliance, hiding his income, and living abroad.

The court found the father engaged in blameworthy conduct and imputed an income of $125,000 to him for the period of 2012-2020 based on a declined job offer from Google.

The court ordered the father to pay $191,964.06 in retroactive child support and section 7 expenses, ongoing child support of $837 per month, and $10,960 in costs to the self-represented mother.

Following cross-motions for summary judgment where the plaintiff was successful in recovering the residual proceeds of a power of sale, the court determined costs and prejudgment interest.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs of $45,515.37, noting the plaintiff beat its Rule 49 offer and the defendants unreasonably rejected a settlement proposal.

The court also awarded prejudgment interest at 2% from the date of the power of sale.

On a motion for temporary spousal support following a 32-year marriage, the court held the moving party established a prima facie entitlement to support based on need arising from reduced earning capacity linked to health issues.

The court accepted that the responding party had ability to pay, while adjusting income and taking into account uncontroverted payments toward joint family debt.

Using the SSAG ranges as a guide for interim relief, the court ordered a without-prejudice holding order of $1,000 per month effective June 1, 2022, pending further order.

Costs were fixed in favour of the moving party.

The moving party father sought to set aside a final order made at an undefended trial pursuant to Family Law Rule 25(19)(e).

The underlying order granted the responding party mother sole decision-making responsibility, child support based on imputed income, and an equalization payment.

The court applied the five-factor test for setting aside a default judgment.

The court found the father's delay in bringing the motion concerning, his explanation for default implausible, and that he failed to raise an arguable defence on the merits regarding equalization or imputed income.

The motion was dismissed, though the father was granted leave to file an Answer solely regarding parenting time.

The accused brought a Garofoli application to quash a search warrant and two production orders issued during a tax fraud investigation.

The court found the search warrant invalid because the information to obtain (ITO) was never sworn under oath.

The court also found the production orders invalid because the affiant swore the ITOs without personal knowledge of their contents, and one of the ITOs was commissioned by a lawyer not authorized to take oaths in Ontario.

The application was granted and the warrants were quashed.

The defendant, Sun Life, brought a motion for summary judgment in a class proceeding regarding the calculation of annual indexing increases on long-term disability benefits.

The plaintiff argued for a reverse summary judgment.

The court found that the interpretation of the policy and the correct methodology to calculate the annual indexing of benefits where 'other income' is deducted raised a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court dismissed both the defendant's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's request for a reverse summary judgment.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class proceeding against Sun Life, alleging it incorrectly calculated long-term disability benefits by wrongfully deducting the inflation component from CPP and PSSA benefits.

Sun Life argued the plaintiff failed to meet the certification criteria.

The court found the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action for breach of contract, though not for punitive damages.

The court amended the class definition to include a temporal limit based on the ultimate limitation period and certified the action, finding a class proceeding to be the preferable procedure.

The defendant former employee moved to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim without leave to amend.

The plaintiffs, a dentist and his practice, alleged the defendant defamed them and sabotaged their computers during her brief employment.

The court struck the poorly drafted statement of claim but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend, finding that tenable causes of action for defamation, breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy were possible on the facts alleged.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay $9,000 in costs for delivering a deficient pleading.

The plaintiff brought a motion for disclosure of emails allegedly transferred by a former employee to a competing business.

However, in its factum, the plaintiff abandoned the relief sought in its notice of motion and instead requested a stay of a previous motion and security for costs.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that a party cannot seek entirely different relief in its factum than what was claimed in its notice of motion.

Alternatively, the court noted the motion would have been dismissed on the merits as the plaintiff already possessed the requested emails.

The respondent mother brought an interim motion seeking to relocate with the parties' child from Norfolk County to Vaughan, Ontario, pending trial.

The applicant father opposed the move, arguing it would uproot the child from his established community and school.

Applying the test for interim mobility, the court found that there were genuine issues for trial regarding the parties' parenting time and that the mother had not provided compelling reasons to justify disrupting the status quo before a full evidentiary hearing.

The motion for interim relocation, along with requests regarding COVID-19 vaccination and therapy enrollment, was dismissed.

Following a motion for interim spousal support and disbursements, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought full-indemnity costs of $57,457.39, alleging bad faith by the respondent for failing to provide timely financial disclosure.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party and that the respondent exhibited an element of bad faith regarding financial disclosure.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $46,000.

The offender, a repeat firearms offender, was convicted of multiple offences including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, and flight from police.

After conviction, the offender cut his ankle bracelet and absconded, leading the court to proceed with sentencing in his absence.

The court applied the jump and totality principles, noting the offender's lengthy record and the serious danger posed by loaded handguns in public, ultimately imposing a global sentence of 15 years imprisonment less pre-trial custody credit.