SCJ 2024

This is an appeal from an interlocutory decision that declined to order the production of unredacted medical records.

The underlying action involves a personal injury claim where the plaintiff experienced a psychotic episode, and their medical records contained delusions about third parties.

The respondents had redacted these specific details from the records.

The appeal court upheld the associate judge's decision, finding that the redacted content was irrelevant to the diagnosis or severity of the psychotic episode and that there was a valid reason (protection of innocent third parties, including a minor, from stigma) for the non-disclosure.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The respondent brought a motion seeking the release of transcripts from two settlement conferences, citing contradictions in statements and language barriers.

The court dismissed the motion, affirming the strict confidentiality of settlement conferences under Rule 17(23) of the Family Law Rules and relevant practice directions.

The decision reiterated that transcripts are only released in "extraordinary circumstances" typically involving safety concerns, which were not present in this case, especially since all family law issues had been finally resolved.

The plaintiff, Robyn Ramanauskas, brought a consent motion to certify a class proceeding against the Bank of Montreal.

The action alleged that the bank charged duplicative non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees on re-presented pre-authorized debit transactions, constituting breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The court found that all criteria under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, including disclosure of a cause of action, an identifiable class, common issues, preferable procedure, and an adequate representative plaintiff.

The motion for certification was granted.

The applicants, charged with drug trafficking and firearms offences, brought a Charter application alleging that warrantless police entries into the common areas of their condominium building to conduct surveillance violated their section 8 rights.

The police used observations from this surveillance to obtain a search warrant for the applicants' unit.

The Superior Court of Justice found that while the first entry to ascertain the applicants' address did not violate section 8, the second entry to confirm drug trafficking activities in the hallway did, as the applicants had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Applying the Grant test under section 24(2), the court excluded the evidence found in the unit, concluding that the police showed reckless disregard for Charter standards and the impact on the applicants' privacy was significant.

The accused, charged with one count of sexual assault involving multiple incidents over a lengthy period, brought an application for particulars under s. 587(1) of the Criminal Code.

He sought specific dates, times, and places of the alleged assaults.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the replacement indictment, which specified the time period, place, victim, and offence, combined with substantial Crown disclosure, provided sufficient information for the accused to make full answer and defence.

The parties separated after a high-conflict marriage marked by domestic violence.

The mother sought sole decision-making, primary residence, child support, and equalization, while the father sought primary residence and joint decision-making, claiming he had the children most of the time and had minimal income.

The court ordered that primary residence remain with the mother and granted her sole decision-making authority, finding the father engaged in alienating behaviour and lacked insight into the children's best interests.

The court imputed an income of $30,000 to the father and ordered him to pay $621 per month in child support.

The father was also ordered to pay $28,097.50 to reimburse the mother for a post-separation withdrawal from their joint line of credit.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to halt a proposed class proceeding by downtown Ottawa residents and businesses against "Freedom Convoy" protestors, organizers, and funders.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs demonstrated grounds to believe their claims had substantial merit and that no valid defence was likely to prevail, and that the public interest in allowing the litigation to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression.

The two accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences involving trafficking in firearms, cocaine, and fentanyl.

The Crown and defence agreed on the base sentences but disagreed on the extent of credit for harsh pre-trial custody conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

The court determined the fit sentences to be 6 years for the first accused and 7 years for the second accused, then quantified the 'Duncan' credit as a 1-year reduction for each accused due to the deplorable conditions, including frequent lockdowns and overcrowding.

After applying the 1.5:1 'Summers' credit, the remaining sentences were calculated.

The respondent father brought a motion for contempt against the applicant mother for withholding parenting time of their child, J.S., contrary to existing court orders.

The court found that the applicant mother intentionally withheld the child from the respondent father's parenting time since August 2, 2023, and that her actions were not in the child's best interests but rather aimed at harming the respondent's relationship with the child.

The court established contempt beyond a reasonable doubt and adjourned the matter for a penalty hearing.

In an uncontested trial, the applicant sought the remaining proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home ($19,930.04) on account of an equalization of net family property, as well as the transfer of a snowmobile.

The respondent had failed to provide financial disclosure despite a court order.

The court reviewed the applicant's net family property statement, made minor adjustments, and found the respondent owed the applicant $22,723.95.

The court ordered the funds held in trust to be paid to the applicant in full satisfaction of the equalization claim, ordered the transfer of the snowmobile, and awarded $1,000 in costs to the applicant.

This seven-day trial addressed spousal support, including entitlement, quantum, retroactivity, lump sum, and duration, following a 24-year marriage.

The court found the applicant entitled to compensatory support due to career sacrifices and her primary caregiver role.

It determined the income for both parties, awarded retroactive support from June 1, 2020, and ongoing monthly support of $1,900.

However, the request for a lump sum future support award was denied due to the unpredictable future means and needs of the parties.

Indefinite support was deemed appropriate given the long duration of the marriage.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action at trial, the defendant sought costs on a full indemnity scale pursuant to a contractual provision in the parties' agreement.

The plaintiffs argued that the provision did not apply to declaratory relief and did not explicitly state 'full indemnity'.

The court held that the contractual language allowing recovery of 'all reasonable costs' entitled the defendant to full indemnity costs.

However, the court declined to award costs for the defendant's U.S. counsel, finding their involvement was not reasonably required for the Ontario litigation.

The court awarded the defendant its Canadian counsel's fees and disbursements in full, totaling $2,192,609.12, finding the amount reasonable and proportionate given the high stakes of the commercial dispute.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought cross-motions regarding interim child support, spousal support, and parenting time for their two children, one of whom is medically fragile.

The court ordered the father to pay interim child support of $822 per month and interim spousal support of $1,077 per month, finding the mother had established a prima facie case of need.

The court also modified the parenting schedule to a week-on/week-off arrangement to minimize conflict between the parties and provide greater stability for the children.

The court issued a costs endorsement for two consolidated applications concerning beneficial ownership of a property.

The initial applications sought declarations of 100% ownership by each party.

The court found a 75.2% interest for Gandhi and 24.8% for Fajebe, ordering the property sold.

Neither party's offers to settle triggered Rule 49.10 costs consequences as they contained non-ordered terms or were not easily comparable to the judgment.

Considering Rule 57.01 factors, including delays and abandoned claims, the court found both parties largely failed to meet their onuses.

Despite Gandhi being "less unsuccessful" the court ordered no costs, finding divided success and no operative offer to settle.

The accused were tried on multiple charges related to human trafficking, procuring, and sexual assault involving a young female complainant.

The court found the primary accused guilty of human trafficking, procuring, advertising sexual services, and receiving a material benefit, relying heavily on text messages that demonstrated a coercive quota system and exploitative control over the complainant's movements.

However, the court acquitted the primary accused of sexual assault, assault, and unlawful confinement due to reasonable doubt arising from credibility issues with both the complainant and the accused.

The co-accused was acquitted of all charges due to insufficient reliable evidence.

The applicant husband brought a motion for sanctions against the respondent wife for failing to comply with a consent disclosure order.

The husband sought a penalty of $250 per day until the breach was cured and an order prohibiting the wife from seeking further relief.

The court found the wife in breach but held it lacked jurisdiction under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to impose a monetary penalty absent a finding of contempt.

The court granted the wife an additional 30 days to provide the outstanding disclosure or demonstrate best efforts, failing which she would be prohibited from seeking further relief and the husband could move to strike her financial claims.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim following the death of the original plaintiff, a resident of a retirement home who was allegedly assaulted by a staff member.

The defendants opposed amendments adding claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of statutes, arguing they were statute-barred or pleaded evidence.

The court granted leave to amend, finding the new claims were either not new causes of action or potentially saved by the lack of a limitation period for assault where dependency exists, though one paragraph pleading evidence of a fine was struck.

This is a sentencing decision following a conviction for sexual assault involving forced intercourse.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the victim's repeated protests, the lack of a condom, and significant psychological harm, against mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of a prior criminal record, youth at the time of the offence, and family support.

The Crown sought 4-5 years, while the defence sought a conditional or reformatory sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for serious sexual assaults, particularly those involving forced penetration, and rejected the defence's argument for a unique circumstance.

A sentence of 3.5 years in the penitentiary was imposed, along with ancillary orders.

This case involved cross-motions between self-represented parents concerning child relocation, child support arrears, ongoing child support, and repayment of loans.

The applicant mother sought child support arrears and ongoing support, and extraordinary expenses, while the respondent father sought relocation of the children, credit for mortgage payments, and repayment of car and collateral loans.

The court dismissed the father's motion for child relocation, finding it not in the children's best interests given the mother's established primary care and better employment prospects.

The court calculated and fixed child support arrears, crediting the father for half of the mortgage payments made on the jointly-owned home.

Ongoing child support was ordered based on the father's income.

The mother's claim for moving expenses was dismissed as not falling under s. 7 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The father's claim for repayment of a car loan was granted in part, while his claim for a collateral loan was dismissed.

This decision addresses the burden of proof for the statutory defence of "reasonable excuse" under s.320.16 of the Criminal Code, following a jury conviction for dangerous driving causing bodily harm and failure to stop after an accident.

The Crown argued the accused bore the persuasive burden, while the defence contended it was merely an evidential burden, with the Crown bearing the ultimate persuasive burden.

The court ruled that the Crown bears the ultimate persuasive burden of disproving the existence of a reasonable excuse beyond a reasonable doubt, finding that Parliament intended to remove the reverse onus with the repeal of s.794(2) of the Criminal Code.