SCJ 2024

The plaintiff, a chargee, sought summary judgment for foreclosure, payment of debt, possession, and leave to issue a writ of possession against the mortgaged property owned by 2811230 Ontario Ltd. and guaranteed by Alisha Chaly.

The defendants raised several issues, including the validity of the mortgage commitment due to an unsigned letter, allegations of civil fraud/conspiracy, the presence of a tenant, the legality/peaceability of a prior lockout, and the plaintiff's alleged failure to act with due diligence regarding mortgage renewal.

The court dismissed all defendant arguments, finding no genuine issues requiring a trial, and granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, including foreclosure, payment, and leave to issue a writ of possession.

The defendants' cross-claim against the City of Niagara Falls was unaffected.

The defendants in a personal injury action brought a motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages for a jury trial, relying on the recently amended Rule 6.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that it would cause undue delay and increase costs.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while bifurcation can promote timely justice, the defendants' request was made too late in the litigation process, close to the scheduled trial date.

The court determined that granting the motion would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiffs by effectively adjourning the damages hearing for an estimated two years, outweighing any potential cost savings or efficiencies.

The plaintiffs sought compensation for injuries sustained by Sandra Bernier during a cycling event.

The defendants and third party brought summary judgment motions, arguing the action was barred by a signed waiver and voluntary assumption of risk.

The court found the waiver enforceable against the plaintiff, including her children's claims under the Family Law Act, and that it covered the alleged negligence, including negligent organization and road maintenance.

The court also found the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk.

The summary judgment motions were granted, and the action was dismissed.

Cary Kaplan, a defendant, brought a motion to dismiss the oppression claim against him by OZ Merchandising Inc. The court granted the motion, finding that the alleged oppressive conduct had been rectified by the Canadian Soccer League Inc.'s admission of successor liability for the Canadian Professional Soccer League Inc.'s liabilities.

Furthermore, the court determined that punitive damages were not an appropriate remedy for rectification in this context and that the claim against Mr. Kaplan was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as it was brought more than five years after the alleged conduct and his addition to the action.

The applicant taxpayers sought equitable rectification of two corporate director's resolutions that declared dividends in June 2016.

The applicants' accountant mistakenly believed that the tax-free proceeds from the sale of corporate goodwill were immediately available in the capital dividend account, resulting in unintended Part III tax liability.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the resolutions accurately reflected the parties' antecedent agreement to declare the dividends in June 2016, and that the applicants were seeking impermissible retroactive tax planning.

The court also noted a lack of due diligence and the availability of adequate legal remedies.

The applicant, Rosemary Maki, sought leave under section 42 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, to compel the respondent, Lucien Cammaert, to pass his accounts regarding his management of their father's (Willy Cammaert) property.

The father, 89 and in long-term care, was deemed to lack capacity.

The applicant alleged extensive involvement and mismanagement by the respondent since 2016, leading to a significant erosion of the father's assets.

The respondent claimed the father managed his own finances until a stroke in February 2024 and that transfers were gifts.

The court granted leave, finding the applicant had a genuine interest and that the respondent was involved in the property's management since January 2016, regardless of the father's capacity at the time, and had not fully accounted for his dealings.

The applicant was awarded costs.

The Respondents (Ebrahimi Parties) brought a motion under Rule 59.06 to set aside or vary three prior court orders related to the implementation of Minutes of Settlement, alleging fraud and newly discovered facts.

They also sought a declaration that the Minutes of Settlement were void.

The Applicants (PCCI) brought a cross-motion to enforce the Minutes of Settlement.

The court granted leave to admit new evidence (February 2024 Memo) and found that PCCI's actions in pursuing criminal charges and restitution in Iran, contrary to their obligations under the Minutes of Settlement, constituted a fundamental breach.

Consequently, the court set aside the relevant implementation orders and declared the Minutes of Settlement null and void, dismissing PCCI's enforcement motion.

The court also addressed costs, awarding partial indemnity costs to the Respondents.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, brought a claim alleging a wide-ranging conspiracy by US officials, Canadian defendants (Toronto Police Services Board, CSIS, and Government of Canada), and others, involving surveillance, remote physical/mental impacts, and financial suppression.

The Canadian defendants moved to strike the Statement of Claim without leave to amend, arguing it lacked sufficient particulars and disclosed no reasonable cause of action, particularly against the Crown.

The court granted the motion, finding the allegations to be bald, unsupported, and incapable of proof, and that no viable claim could be pleaded even with amendments.

The accused applied to exclude evidence, including a firearm, seized from his home under a search warrant, arguing insufficient grounds for the warrant's issuance.

The court found insufficient grounds to establish an offence had been committed and that a firearm would be found in the home due to staleness of information and lack of clear evidence.

The application was granted, and the evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, emphasizing the seriousness of the police conduct (carelessness in disclosure) and the significant impact on the applicant's privacy interests.

The parties brought competing motions under Rule 21.01(1)(a) to determine the validity of a Release signed by the mortgagor, which purported to waive her right to sue the mortgagees and her real estate agent.

The mortgagor had entered into a series of increasingly expensive private mortgages brokered by her real estate agent, who concealed that the lenders were his family members and their companies.

The court found that the real estate agent was the directing mind behind the loans and had breached his fiduciary duty.

The court held that the Release was void and unenforceable because its execution was an unconscionable transaction resulting from an inequality of bargaining power and an improvident bargain, characterized by exorbitant borrowing costs and illegal fees.

Following findings of guilt on multiple counts arising from prolonged sexual abuse of a child by a step-parent, the court proceeded to sentence an absconded accused in absentia after finding he had abandoned his right to be present.

Applying the rule against multiple convictions, the court stayed the sexual assault counts and entered convictions on the sexual interference counts only.

Giving primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence under the Criminal Code and relying on the guidance in Friesen, the court imposed a six-year penitentiary sentence.

The court also made mandatory and discretionary ancillary orders, including DNA, sex offender registration, child-related prohibition, non-communication, and weapons prohibition orders.

The reasons for the decision in R. v. Zaringhalami are not available at this time.

No substantive details regarding the facts, issues, or court's analysis are provided in the record.

Consequently, a summary of the legal proceedings cannot be generated.

The offender was convicted of two counts of sexual assault against his 18-year-old stepdaughter.

The offences involved forced vaginal intercourse and occurred in the victim's home, constituting a severe breach of trust.

The court weighed significant aggravating factors, including the profound psychological impact on the victim, against mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of a criminal record and the collateral immigration consequences of likely deportation.

The court imposed consecutive sentences of 3 years for each count, resulting in a global custodial sentence of 6 years, along with a 20-year SOIRA order and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

Following the dismissal of an urgent injunction application regarding a commercial tenancy, the respondent landlord sought costs against the applicant tenant and two of its non-party shareholders personally.

The court found that the 'person of straw' test was not met, as the applicant was the proper party to the lease dispute.

However, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to prevent an abuse of process, finding that the two shareholders engaged in gross misconduct by authorizing and funding the litigation while withholding funds from the insolvent applicant, thereby depriving it of the ability to pay rent or a costs award.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $29,405, payable jointly and severally by the applicant and the two shareholders.

The applicant brought a Charter application under s. 24(2) to exclude a massager seized from his apartment, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) for the search warrant failed to disclose sufficient grounds, breaching s. 8.

The court reviewed the ITO, applying principles of excision and amplification to correct minor inaccuracies regarding the applicant's alleged sexual communications and use of the massager with the 11-year-old complainant.

The court found that even on the corrected record, there were overwhelming reasonable and probable grounds to believe offences had been committed and that the items sought would afford evidence.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought an ex parte interim injunction to restrain secondary picketing at its facility by individuals associated with a union engaged in a strike against the plaintiff's majority shareholder.

The picketers blockaded the facility, significantly delaying the departure of delivery vehicles, including those carrying critical medical supplies.

The court found that the statutory rules for labour injunctions did not apply because there was no labour dispute between the plaintiff and the picketers.

Applying the test for a conventional interim injunction, the court granted the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding unlawful obstruction, irreparable harm to the plaintiff and its customers, and a balance of convenience favouring the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, a residential tenant, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction against a neighbouring bar and its landlords, alleging nuisance from amplified sound and noise vibrations.

The plaintiff sought orders restricting the bar's operations, requiring the installation of a noise limiter, and compelling police response to complaints.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured an injunction under the RJR-MacDonald test.

The court also found the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case of nuisance under the alternative Hamilton test, noting the lack of expert evidence regarding sound levels in the plaintiff's apartment.

The appellant appealed his conviction for failing or refusing to comply with a breath demand following a motor vehicle collision.

He argued that the police lacked valid grounds to make the demand, that the demand was not made as soon as practicable, and that he had a reasonable excuse for refusing because he was not the driver.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's application of the law or assessment of credibility, and declined to depart from binding Supreme Court precedent establishing that not driving is not a reasonable excuse for refusing a valid breath demand.

The applicant brought a motion for directions in an estate dispute, seeking the production of the deceased's medical, solicitor, and police records, as well as leave to examine the deceased's solicitors.

The applicant challenged a 2022 codicil that appointed the respondent as sole estate trustee, alleging lack of capacity and undue influence.

The court dismissed the request for additional medical records, finding no evidence to support a fishing expedition.

The court partially granted the request for solicitor records, ordering production of the 2019 estate planning file but protecting files related to a 2006 fraud action and a 2009 will.

The court also ordered the production of unredacted police records regarding domestic disputes at the deceased's home.