SCJ 2024

The parties sought approval of a settlement involving a defendant under disability.

The plaintiff had commenced an action seeking a declaration of constructive trust over a property and resisting eviction.

Following a related proceeding, the plaintiff agreed to provide vacant possession and abandon his claims, with this action to be dismissed without costs.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the party under disability, as it avoided litigation risks and unrecoverable costs.

The accused was charged with sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault involving a 14-year-old complainant.

The alleged incidents occurred in the complainant's grandfather's basement where the accused resided.

The court heard evidence from the complainant, his mother, his grandfather, and the accused.

The judge applied principles of reasonable doubt and credibility assessment, including the W.(D.) framework and cautions against sexual offence myths.

While the accused's testimony was found to be incredible, and inconsistencies were noted in the complainant's and his family's evidence, the court ultimately found that the Crown had not proven the essential elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The Respondent Wife brought a motion seeking a declaration that the Applicant Husband committed the tort of intrusion upon seclusion by intercepting her private emails and Facebook messages and attaching them to his settlement conference brief.

The Husband argued the communications were not publicly distributed and that declaratory relief was inappropriate.

The court found the Husband intentionally accessed private communications without consent or lawful justification, and that a reasonable person would find this highly offensive.

The court granted the declaration, finding it timely and efficient, but reserved ancillary remedies like damages to the trial judge as they were not sought in the motion.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a judgment where the plaintiffs largely succeeded in their action for partition and sale and successfully defended against the defendant's counterclaim, with the exception of a minor payment to the defendant.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, or alternatively, partial indemnity.

The defendant argued for a lower award, citing partial success and excessive hours claimed by the plaintiffs.

The court determined that the defendant's conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs, finding that hard-fought litigation alone is insufficient.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, reducing the plaintiffs' claimed hours due to some duplication of work, and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiffs an all-inclusive amount of $125,000.00.

The court also noted that offers to settle could not be assessed for Rule 49.10 consequences due to fluctuating property values.

The accused was charged with multiple firearms offences after police found a loaded handgun in a bag left on a bar patio.

The accused brought a Charter application arguing that his rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) were violated during the police investigation.

The court found that the accused had not abandoned the bag and had a reasonable expectation of privacy in it, making the warrantless search a violation of s. 8.

The court also found that the accused was arbitrarily detained during a parole compliance check, violating s. 9, and that police breached his ss. 10(a) and 10(b) rights by failing to promptly advise him of the reasons for his detention and his right to counsel.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the cumulative effect of the serious Charter breaches warranted the exclusion of the firearm.

Without the firearm, the Crown could not prove its case, and the accused was acquitted of all charges.

The applicants sought a court order to rectify the land register under s. 57(13) of the Land Titles Act, declaring a mortgage on their home void and fraudulent due to forged signatures.

The respondents, Ryan Mortgage Income Fund Inc. and the Director of Titles, did not oppose the application.

The court found the mortgage to be a fraudulent instrument and granted the order, directing rectification.

The judge criticized the respondents for requiring the applicants to bring an unnecessary proceeding, causing significant delay and cost, when the respondents could have acted themselves.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim and to compel answers to refusals from the defendant's examination for discovery in an action for repayment of disability benefits.

The defendant opposed the amendments, arguing they were barred by s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991.

The court granted leave to amend, finding the amendments pleaded underlying facts rather than prohibited records.

The court also ordered the defendant to answer the refused questions regarding CPSO proceedings, financial records, and other litigation, with minor limitations.

The applicant was successful on a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home and sought costs of $8,000.

The respondent opposed, citing her unemployment and the applicant's failure to pay support.

The court fixed costs at $6,500, finding the respondent's resistance to the sale unreasonable but reducing the amount to exclude time spent on a related support motion.

Given the applicant's substantial admitted support arrears, the court ordered that the costs not be payable until all issues in the case are finally resolved to allow for potential set-off.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment for damages and an accounting based on reciprocal profit-sharing agreements related to wind farm projects, alleging the defendants failed to remit his share of proceeds from a $30 million sale to China Longyuan.

The defendants opposed, arguing no payment obligation was triggered and that the action was statute-barred or prejudiced by delay.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding the record incomplete for quantum determination and corporate defendant liability.

However, the court also dismissed the defendants' request to dismiss the action, ruling that the profit-sharing obligations were triggered and rejecting the limitation period and prejudice arguments.

The case was ordered to proceed to trial with specific directions for discovery and mediation, and certain material facts were deemed undisputed.

The National Bank of Canada brought an application seeking a declaration that Garfield Anthony Hibbert is a vexatious litigant and an order curtailing his ability to commence or continue litigation against the Bank.

The court found that Mr. Hibbert had persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings, repeatedly re-litigating the same facts related to a TFSA dispute across multiple courts, failing to pay costs, and threatening further litigation.

The court validated service on Mr. Hibbert, who did not file materials or attend the hearing.

The application was granted, declaring Mr. Hibbert a vexatious litigant.

Jahlando Sinclair, aged 22, faced charges related to the robbery of two pharmacies.

The central issue was the identification of Sinclair as one of the robbers, specifically the one wearing a grey Roots hoodie.

The Crown relied heavily on high-quality video surveillance, physical resemblance, matching clothing and accessories (shoes, underwear, mask), temporal proximity to other identified robbers, and the location of his arrest near discarded robbery clothing.

The court applied principles of video identification and circumstantial evidence, finding that the cumulative effect of the evidence led to the only reasonable inference of guilt, rejecting the defence's "series of coincidences" argument.

Sinclair was found guilty of robbery, masked with intent, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

A charge of possession of a loaded restricted firearm was reduced to a lesser included offence.

This decision concerns the costs of a prior motion in an employment class action.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion to settle a Discovery Plan, and the Defendants brought a cross-motion to amend certified common issues.

The court granted the Defendants' motion and dismissed the Plaintiffs' motion.

The Defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, while the Plaintiffs argued for costs in the cause or partial indemnity.

The court awarded the Defendants $29,930.58 on a partial indemnity basis, finding that while the Plaintiffs' proposed discovery plan was "outrageous, abusive, and unfair" their conduct in seeking it was not.

The court also considered that the process of developing the discovery plan, despite the Plaintiffs losing the motion, ultimately benefited them by leading to admissions that could avoid an onerous common issues trial.

This ruling addresses Crown applications in a human trafficking trial for two complainants, aged 15 and 16 at the time of the alleged offences, to testify from outside the courtroom.

The applications were brought under section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code, which permits such orders to facilitate a full and candid account or in the interest of the proper administration of justice.

The court considered the complainants' anxiety and fear, particularly one who experienced panic attacks during the preliminary hearing.

The court noted the lowered threshold for such orders following a 2015 amendment to the Criminal Code.

Both applications were granted, subject to technical transmission quality, with instructions to the jury not to draw adverse inferences from the use of testimonial aids.

The plaintiff, a subcontractor, sued the general contractor, a financial corporation, and Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) for payment on a construction project.

PWGSC, later renamed The Attorney General of Canada (AGC), brought a motion to strike the Statement of Claim against it.

The court granted the motion, finding no reasonable cause of action for breach of contract, breach of trust under the Construction Act (which does not apply to the federal Crown), or unjust enrichment, due to the existence of juristic reasons (contracts between owner-contractor and contractor-subcontractor, and the comprehensive scheme of the Construction Act).

The accused was discharged at a preliminary inquiry on two counts of trafficking in a scheduled substance under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown subsequently preferred an indictment that included two counts of trafficking in a substance held out to be a scheduled substance, based on the same underlying facts.

The accused brought a motion to quash these counts, arguing they were the same offences for which he had been discharged.

The court agreed, finding that trafficking is a single offence that can be committed in different ways, and therefore the Crown could not prefer an indictment for these charges under section 574 of the Criminal Code.

The application was granted and the counts were quashed.

The accused, Rene Smith, applied for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging an infringement of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial end was over 31 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court cases.

The court found no defence delay but identified two exceptional circumstances: the court's loss of disclosure (4 months and 10 days) and a mistrial (11 days), which were beyond the Crown's control.

The appointment of an amicus was not deemed exceptional as the need was foreseeable.

After subtracting the exceptional delay, the net delay fell below the presumptive ceiling.

The court dismissed the application for a stay, concluding that the remaining delay was not unreasonable, despite the applicant's efforts to expedite proceedings, as his conduct made the case more complex.

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.

The moving parties, Orange Transport Inc., Charbel Matar, and Maroun Aoun, sought a Mareva injunction against Joe Nahra to prevent him from transferring or encumbering his property and disposing of assets, and a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on his property.

They alleged Nahra breached fiduciary duties, misappropriated funds, and competed directly with Orange Transport, causing significant losses.

Nahra disputed the allegations, claiming he was divested of directorial authority before competing and that asset sales were for legitimate expenses.

The court dismissed both the Mareva injunction and CPL requests, finding the moving parties did not establish a strong prima facie case, nor did they prove Nahra's intent to defraud by dissipating assets.

The balance of convenience also did not favor granting the injunction, and the CPL was denied as the claim did not assert an interest in the land and was not pleaded.

The parties attended a case conference regarding the respondent father's request to review the parenting schedule.

The respondent had failed to pay over $250,000 in child support arrears and $31,735 in costs from prior orders, claiming the court lacked jurisdiction because he lived in Pennsylvania.

The court found that the respondent's blatant refusal to comply with financial orders went to his ability to act in the children's best interests.

Relying on Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court stayed the proceedings until the respondent paid the outstanding costs, and permitted the applicant mother to bring motions for security for costs and to strike the respondent's pleadings.

The accused, Adam Luangphasi and Alexander Le, were tried on multiple counts including conspiracy to traffic, import, and produce cocaine, as well as participating in a criminal organization and possessing proceeds of crime.

The Crown's case relied heavily on intercepted communications, surveillance, and expert evidence decoding drug jargon.

Applying the Carter framework for co-conspirator hearsay, the court found both accused guilty of conspiracy to traffic cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine from Guyana.

Luangphasi was also found guilty of a separate conspiracy to import cocaine using a private plane.

Both accused were acquitted of the criminal organization charges due to a lack of proven structure and continuity, and acquitted of the carpet importation and production conspiracies.

Luangphasi was acquitted of possessing proceeds of crime.