SCJ 2024

The Crown sought to admit evidence of the accused's other discreditable conduct, specifically the discovery of a handgun and unique ammunition in his car, in a first-degree murder trial where identity was a key issue.

The court applied the framework for admissibility of similar fact evidence, assessing probative value against prejudicial effect.

The court ruled that the evidence of the unique combination of ammunition found in the accused's car was admissible due to its high probative value in establishing identity, outweighing its prejudicial effect.

However, the evidence of the firearm itself was deemed inadmissible due to low probative value and higher prejudicial risk, unless the accused denied association with the ammunition.

This criminal trial concerned three sexual assault charges against J.D., involving his daughter LG, allegedly committed when she was 6-7 years old.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant's and the accused's testimony, along with other witnesses.

Despite LG's credible demeanor, the court found significant inconsistencies and inaccuracies in her memory, particularly regarding corroborating details.

The accused's testimony, corroborated by a third-party witness, was found to be credible and reliable.

The Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal on all counts.

This is a criminal case where the court's reasons are not available at this time.

The file indicates a criminal proceeding (R. v. Blair) before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The Applicants, limited partners in Binscarth Holdings L.P., sought declarations that they were entitled to annual cash distributions of the partnership's net income, arguing the Limited Partnership Agreement (LPA) contravened the Limited Partnerships Act and the Accumulations Act, or that a specific tax distribution clause in the LPA mandated a higher payout.

The court dismissed all claims.

It found that the Limited Partnerships Act only requires profits to be credited to capital accounts, not mandating cash distributions, and that the LPA's discretionary distribution power was valid.

The court also determined the Accumulations Act did not apply to this commercial partnership transaction and that the applicants had waived any rights under it.

Finally, the court upheld the general partner's interpretation and calculation of tax-related distributions under the LPA.

The Applicant sought to set aside a 2006 separation agreement and requested interim spousal support.

The Respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the application.

The court dismissed the Respondent's summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues of fact requiring a trial regarding non-disclosure, unconscionability, duress, and undue influence concerning the separation agreement.

The Applicant's motion for interim spousal support was dismissed without prejudice due to significant delay and lack of assets to repay if the agreement is upheld.

The court ordered a joint settlement/trial management conference to expedite a trial date.

The Superior Court of Justice heard a family law trial concerning parenting, child support, spousal support, and a tort claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The court granted a divorce, established joint decision-making responsibility with the mother having final authority, and set a parenting schedule with the mother as primary caregiver during the school year and week-about time during summer.

Child support was ordered based on the father's income.

The mother was found entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and needs bases, but no amount was ordered due to the father's inability to pay after child support.

The mother's claim for damages for intentional infliction of mental suffering was dismissed as the father's conduct, while insensitive, was not found to be flagrant, outrageous, or calculated to cause harm.

The defendant brought a motion seeking an order for the plaintiff, Rafik Yasso, to undergo independent medical examinations (IMEs) by a neuropsychologist and a physiatrist.

The plaintiff opposed, citing past negative experiences with IME scheduling and the triggering of his anxiety/PTSD.

The court found that the defendant had a procedural and substantive entitlement to these examinations.

Despite the plaintiff's past difficulties, the court determined there was no compelling reason preventing his participation and that the prejudice to the defendant in proceeding to trial without responding medical evidence outweighed the plaintiff's inconvenience.

The motion was allowed, and the plaintiff was ordered to attend the IMEs, with no costs awarded due to shared responsibility for the difficulties.

The registrar referred this matter to the court under Rule 2.1.01(7) at the request of Bradley Court Limited, the plaintiff (defendant by counterclaim), after the main action was dismissed.

The court reviewed the counterclaim filed by Christopher Tinkasimire, the self-represented defendant (plaintiff by counterclaim), and found it appeared to be frivolous and vexatious.

The court ordered that Mr. Tinkasimire be given notice in Form 2.1A to make submissions as to why the counterclaim should not be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01(1).

Pending the outcome of this written hearing, the counterclaim was stayed pursuant to section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, and no further filings would be accepted except for Mr. Tinkasimire's submissions.

The Estate Trustee of a deceased co-owner sought partition and sale of a property held as tenants in common with the deceased's three brothers.

The respondents failed to engage in discussions or respond to the application.

The court granted the application for partition and sale, affirming the prima facie right of an owner to such an order unless malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct is proven.

Due to the respondents' non-cooperation, the applicant was granted carriage of the sale, with the court dispensing with the need for respondents' consent or signatures for sale-related documents.

This is a costs endorsement following motions regarding refusals on cross-examinations in a proposed class action.

The plaintiff's motion for refusals was largely dismissed, while the Solart defendants' cross-motion regarding the plaintiff's refusals was allowed.

The court considered various factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, emphasizing that substantial indemnity costs are reserved for "reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct." While the plaintiff's counsel's conduct was deemed unreasonable, it did not generally meet this high threshold, except in the case of Martin Yockell, where class counsel's conduct during cross-examination was found to be reprehensible, warranting substantial indemnity costs.

The court also addressed the recoverability of costs for pro bono counsel and costs thrown away.

The reasons for this decision are not available at this time, therefore a summary of the case facts, legal reasoning, and outcome cannot be provided.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend her Amended Statement of Claim to re-add claims for aggravated damages and unpaid overtime wages, which had been previously removed by consent of her former counsel.

The defendant opposed, arguing abuse of process and non-compensable prejudice due to the expiry of limitation periods.

The court denied the motion, finding that allowing the amendments would constitute an abuse of process by resiling from a binding agreement and would cause non-compensable prejudice as the limitation period for the claims had expired.

This decision addresses the remaining issues of spousal support between Warren Muir and Lucille Schaaf, following a prior determination that they were spouses.

The court considered the commencement, duration, and amount of spousal support.

Ms. Schaaf, aged 65 with health issues and limited employability, sought indefinite support of $1,500 monthly from July 2022.

Mr. Muir, a high-income millwright, proposed $800 monthly for three years from August 2023.

The court ordered indefinite spousal support of $1,000 per month, commencing July 1, 2022, granting Mr. Muir credit for payments already made.

No orders were made for medical/dental benefits or life insurance.

The plaintiff sought long-term disability (LTD) benefits and general damages for breach of contract, claiming total disability due to chronic back and leg pain, anxiety, and depression.

The plaintiff had not submitted a formal LTD application, seeking relief from forfeiture.

The court granted relief from forfeiture, finding imperfect compliance.

However, the court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's claim for LTD benefits and general damages, finding that he failed to prove total disability as defined by the policy, largely due to inconsistencies between his subjective complaints, objective medical evidence, video surveillance, and his work history.

The applicant, charged with firearms offences, sought to exclude firearm evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging a breach of his s. 8 rights due to an unlawful search.

The court found that while the general warrant for a cellphone was valid, the police search of the vehicle exceeded its scope, constituting a Charter breach.

Applying the Grant test, the court determined the breach was serious, the impact on the accused's Charter interests was significant (especially given his status as a victim in the underlying murder investigation), and despite society's interest in adjudication on the merits of serious firearm charges, the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application to exclude the evidence was granted.

The Applicant father sought to reduce longstanding s.7 expense arrears owed for his two adult children.

The Respondent mother brought a cross-motion to update and fix the arrears based on actual expenses, including post-secondary studies, and for costs.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion, finding he had not diligently pursued variation in Canada despite being aware of his obligations.

The court granted the Respondent's cross-motion, fixing the s.7 arrears at $83,432.08 plus interest, and ordered payment of previously awarded costs with interest, all collectible as child support.

The Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1899 sought extraordinary relief, including an order for the respondent, a unit owner, to vacate and sell her unit, due to her persistent disturbing, threatening, intimidating, and harassing behaviour towards residents, staff, and board members.

The respondent had previously been subject to a compliance order under s. 134 of the Condominium Act, which she subsequently breached by assaulting a housekeeper.

The court found that the respondent's continued presence posed a significant threat to the health and well-being of residents and, in the absence of any evidence or explanation from the respondent, granted the relief sought, ordering the sale of the unit and payment of full indemnity costs.

The appellant, William Peters, appealed his conviction for operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

The appeal centered on the trial judge's alleged misapprehension of evidence regarding the reliability and credibility of a key civilian witness.

The appellant argued that inconsistencies in the witness's testimony, including details about the vehicle, her property ownership, her level of impairment, and animosity towards the appellant, rendered the verdict unreasonable.

The court found these alleged inconsistencies to be minor or irrelevant, concluding that it was open to the trial judge to accept the witness's testimony.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming that any misapprehension of evidence must demonstrably influence the trial judge's reasoning process to warrant setting aside a judgment.

The applicant, CURO Group Holdings Corp., as Foreign Representative, sought recognition and enforcement in Canada of six orders from the United States Bankruptcy Court under section 49 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

These orders included amendments to securitization documents, critical vendor payments, utility assurances, final taxes, disclosure statement approval, and revised customer programs.

The relief was unopposed and supported by lenders and the Information Officer.

The court granted the recognition order, finding it necessary for the protection of the debtors' property and consistent with the principles of cross-border insolvency.