SCJ 2023

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the parties' three-year-old daughter to Ireland, arguing she needed to return to her home country to practice optometry and escape the respondent father's alleged coercive control.

The father opposed the relocation.

The court dismissed the relocation application, finding the mother's allegations of abuse lacked credibility and her economic rationale was flawed, as she could upgrade her degree in Canada.

Instead of permitting relocation, the court ordered the father to pay compensatory spousal support to fund the mother's professional requalification in Ontario, and ordered joint decision-making for the child.

The defendant Conseil des Écoles Catholiques du Centre Est (CECCE) brought a summary judgment motion to determine if portable school classrooms built by the plaintiff OnPoint Group Ltd. are "improvements" under the Construction Act, thereby engaging lien provisions, and to dismiss OnPoint's unjust enrichment claim.

The court found the portables are "improvements" and lienable due to their on-site completion, known final destination, CECCE's holdback practices, and enhancement of the school's utility.

However, the unjust enrichment claim was dismissed as CECCE was not unjustly enriched and a juristic reason (contract with general contractor) existed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of $120,000 based on a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) and a Personal Guarantee.

The defendants argued the Guarantee lacked consideration, was invalid due to drafting errors, and that the JVA only required repayment if the project realized a profit.

They also contended that summary judgment was inappropriate for a simplified procedure action.

The court found the Guarantee valid, noting the plaintiff's reliance on it for her investment, and rejected the defendants' interpretation of the JVA based on the defendant's subsequent acknowledgments of the debt.

The court also found the corporate defendant unjustly enriched.

Summary judgment was deemed appropriate given the document-driven nature of the case and the undisputed material facts.

The accused, Adrian Myles Puentes-Reed and Kalid Yousuf, were jointly charged with multiple offences including possession of proceeds of crime, possession of cocaine and marijuana for trafficking, and various firearm offences.

They were found asleep in a "safe house" in Thunder Bay containing large amounts of cash, drugs, and firearms.

The defence argued lack of possession and knowledge, with Puentes-Reed claiming he was intoxicated and inadvertently brought to the residence.

The court rejected the defence's explanations, finding them incredible and inconsistent with documentary evidence and the nature of the "safe house" operation.

Both accused were found guilty on all remaining charges, as the Crown proved constructive possession and knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is a placeholder entry for a criminal case where the full reasons for judgment are not available at this time.

The case involves R. (the Crown) and Khan.

No details regarding the nature of the proceedings, the facts, or the outcome can be provided.

This sentencing decision concerns a defendant convicted of procuring, luring, and obtaining sexual services from a 17-year-old complainant.

The court addresses the appropriate sentence, considering aggravating factors such as the defendant's age and multiple incidents, and mitigating factors including no prior criminal record and a mistaken belief about the age of consent for sexual activity.

The decision also discusses the constitutional validity of mandatory minimum sentences for luring in light of recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence (Friesen, Sullivan, Hills, Hilbach) and the impact of Bill C-5 on the availability of conditional sentences.

The court ultimately imposes a global sentence of 3 years in custody, to be served concurrently for all counts, along with a Sex Offender Information Registry Act order and a DNA order.

The defendants, Frank Lee and Jason Cooney, brought a Charter application to exclude two kilograms of crystal methamphetamine found in their car, arguing violations of their s. 9 (unreasonable arrest) and s. 10(b) (right to counsel) Charter rights.

The court found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, thus no s. 9 violation.

However, it found s. 10(b) violations for both defendants due to delays in advising and facilitating access to counsel.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant test, the court determined that the seriousness of the police misconduct (carelessness, not systemic) and the impact on the accused's Charter interests (no evidence flowed from the breach) were outweighed by society's strong interest in adjudicating the case on its merits, given the reliable and significant evidence.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses issues arising from a prior trial judgment, specifically concerning the calculation of Net Family Property (NFP) equalization, the form of judgment regarding pre-judgment interest, and the timetable for cost submissions.

The court found an arithmetic error in the NFP equalization calculation, agreeing with the respondent that both principal and compound interest of "Parental Loans" should be included as discounted debts.

The court also clarified that the judgment should include pre-judgment interest as per the Courts of Justice Act.

A revised timetable for cost submissions was agreed upon by the parties.

The applicants sought to prevent the Township of Wollaston from selling a parcel of land, arguing it was subject to a charitable trust established by a will and, alternatively, that the sale was ultra vires as not properly authorized by by-law.

The court found that no charitable trust was created as certainty of intention was not met, meaning the Township held the land in fee simple.

However, the court agreed that the Township's decision to sell the property was ultra vires because it was not authorized by a specific by-law, rendering the agreement of purchase and sale null and void.

The court noted the Township could rectify this by passing a proper by-law.

Due to mixed success, no costs were awarded.

The plaintiff, Naymark Law Professional Corporation, brought a motion for leave to obtain a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a property and for substituted service by email on two defendants.

The CPL was sought in relation to a fraudulent conveyance claim against the defendants, who had transferred a jointly owned property for no consideration shortly after an assessment report confirmed a significant debt owed to the plaintiff for legal fees.

The court applied the modified test for CPLs in fraudulent conveyance claims, finding a high probability of judgment recovery, a prima facie case of fraudulent transfer intent, and that the balance of convenience favored granting the CPL.

The court also granted substituted service by email, noting the defendants' past evasion of service and the reasonable likelihood that email would bring the matter to their attention.

The plaintiff, a former General Manager, brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal, seeking damages for reasonable notice, lost fringe benefits, expense reimbursement, and moral damages.

The defendants conceded joint responsibility for damages and expense reimbursement but disputed the notice period, mitigation, and moral damages.

The court assessed the reasonable notice period at seven months, dismissed the defendants' mitigation arguments due to lack of evidence, and awarded moral damages of $15,000 due to the employer's bad faith conduct during termination, including failure to provide written notice, delayed ESA payments, and unfulfilled severance promises.

This is an endorsement on costs following a decision where the applicant, Mary Maureen Marttunen, was awarded costs against the respondent, Raymond McDevitt.

The court had previously found Raymond McDevitt liable for misappropriating over $400,000 from a vulnerable elderly person to whom he owed a fiduciary duty.

The applicant requested costs on a substantial indemnity basis, totaling $27,543.23.

The respondent did not submit any materials regarding costs.

The court agreed with the applicant's submission, finding the matter complex and the respondent's conduct egregious, justifying substantial indemnity costs.

The Respondents moved to convert an oppression remedy application into an action, asserting material facts were in dispute.

The Applicants sought a sale of shares.

The court, exercising its case management authority, adjourned the conversion motion.

Instead, recognizing the parties' shared ultimate objective of a share divestment, the court ordered the Respondents to purchase the Applicant's shares and established a comprehensive timetable for expert valuation, aiming to expedite the resolution of the long-standing corporate dispute.

This is a case management ruling in a high-conflict family law matter involving parenting, equalization, and support.

The court addressed the parties' failure to comply with filing directions for a combined Settlement/Trial Scheduling Conference, including lack of settlement conference documents, expert reports, and financial statements.

The ruling sets out strict timelines and directions for future steps, including motions regarding parenting time and expert appointment, OCL involvement, and preparation for a peremptory trial in May 2023, emphasizing the need to avoid further delay in the child's best interests.

The accused was charged with assault, sexual assault, and breach of probation.

The court acquitted the accused of assault, finding her actions were reflexive and lacked the necessary mens rea.

However, the court found the accused guilty of sexual assault and breach of probation, concluding that the Crown proved the actus reus and mens rea for sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting the defense of honest but mistaken belief in consent due to the use of force and lack of reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

This endorsement addresses the costs of previous motions in a family law proceeding.

The applicant, Mr. Hurdon, argued for no costs due to divided success or, alternatively, $5,000 in costs to the respondent.

The respondent, Ms. Crooks, sought full or enhanced partial indemnity costs, arguing she was substantially more successful and that the applicant's conduct increased costs.

The court found Ms. Crooks predominantly successful on the primary issues, including child support, sale of the family home, and successfully opposing Mr. Hurdon's claims for exclusive possession and valuation of Ms. Crooks' business.

The court awarded Ms. Crooks partial indemnity costs of $16,904.43, taking into account her offers to settle.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a successful motion to annul a corporate bankruptcy.

The court found that the assignment into bankruptcy was an improper use of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, driven by self-interest to halt ongoing litigation.

While the conduct was not 'especially egregious' to warrant full indemnity costs, it justified an award of substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded the successful party $55,750 in substantial indemnity costs against the party who improperly initiated the bankruptcy, comprising fees, HST, and disbursements.

No costs were awarded to or against the trustee.

This ruling addresses the costs of a six-day trial concerning a father's motion to change and a mother's response, primarily focused on spousal support and child support termination.

The court had previously dismissed the father's claims to set aside a consent order and terminate spousal support, and the mother's claim for student loan contributions, while ordering increased spousal support for the mother without a termination date.

The mother sought approximately $80,000 in costs, and the father argued for no costs or a maximum of $15,000.

The court found the mother to be the successful party on the most significant issue (spousal support) and awarded her $55,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The decision considered the importance and complexity of the issues, the parties' behaviour, and offers to settle, ultimately declining to impose increased costs for unreasonable behaviour.

This decision addresses the quantum of costs following a 4-day jury trial where the plaintiff was successful on liability but found contributorily negligent, resulting in an award of $58,590.09.

The plaintiff sought $206,960.36 in costs, while the defendants proposed $45,400.

The court, exercising its broad discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and considering Rule 57.01(1) and Rule 49.10(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the plaintiff's requested costs disproportionate and unreasonable due to excessive hourly fees and unnecessary disbursements.

The court awarded the plaintiff $75,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The applicants, Vito Bailey-Ricketts and Victoria Dittmer, brought a pre-trial motion alleging violations of their ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights and seeking the exclusion of evidence obtained from warrantless searches incident to their arrest.

The central issue was whether police had reasonable and probable grounds to lawfully arrest the applicants for possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking.

The court found that the totality of circumstantial evidence, including wiretaps, surveillance, and location data gathered during "Project Sunder" provided objectively reasonable and probable grounds for the arrests.

Consequently, the arrests did not violate s. 9 of the Charter, and the subsequent searches did not violate s. 8.

The motion was dismissed.