SCJ 2024

The defendant, 2756646 Ontario Inc. (Mitchell Woods), brought a motion to discharge five certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) registered against nine properties.

The plaintiffs had obtained these CPLs based on Agreements of Purchase and Sale (APS) for homes that were never built.

Mitchell Woods argued the APS were not enforceable against it as it was not the named vendor and that damages would be an adequate remedy.

The plaintiffs contended that Hira Custom Homes Inc. acted as Mitchell Woods' agent, or Mitchell Woods was implicitly referenced in the APS, or a constructive trust arose.

The court found a triable issue regarding the plaintiffs' interest in the land based on agency or implied terms.

Considering the equities, particularly the advantageous terms of the APS and the defendant's failure to provide evidence of its ability to pay damages, the court dismissed the motion to discharge the CPLs.

The applicant, TTC Insurance Company Limited (TTCICL), sought an order extending the time to commence their appeal of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision and an order joining this appeal with an existing application for judicial review.

Concurrently, the LAT and the Attorney General of Ontario sought leave to intervene in the appeal.

The court granted both motions, finding that the extension of time was justified given the recent Supreme Court decision in Yatar, the short delay, lack of prejudice to the respondent, and the overall interests of justice.

Intervenor status was granted to LAT and the Attorney General, with LAT's submissions restricted to procedural and jurisdictional issues, not the merits of its decision.

The appellant, Massimo Conti, appealed an order discharging a certificate of pending litigation, which was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the costs for the successful self-represented respondents, John Duca, Joseph Duca, and Daytona Auto Centre Ltd., and the intervenor, Sergio Grillone.

The court considered the principles for awarding costs to self-represented litigants, including claims for lost income and opportunity costs, and the general principle of indemnification.

The court found no evidence to support the respondents' claim for lost commissions or special costs due to the appellant's counsel's conduct.

However, acknowledging the time and annoyance caused by the appeal, the court exercised its discretion to award modest costs to both the respondents and the intervenor.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the Respondent for sexual assault.

The appeal raised four grounds: wrongful admission and use of section 276 evidence (prior sexual activity), erroneous reliance on "implied consent" misapplication of the "de minimis" principle, and failure to apply or provide sufficient reasons regarding the decision in R. v. Chase concerning the sexual purpose of the touching.

The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that while the trial judge erred in admitting certain evidence, it was not material to the acquittal, which was based on reasonable doubt regarding the sexual assault.

The court also clarified that implied consent does not apply to sexual assault and upheld the trial judge's reasoning on the de minimis principle and the application of Chase.

The defendants brought a motion for particulars seeking additional details regarding the plaintiffs' claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent payments, oppression, and piercing the corporate veil.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim provided sufficient material facts to allow the defendants to plead.

The judge emphasized that many requested particulars were either already provided, within the defendants' own knowledge (e.g., corporate records), or could be obtained through the discovery process.

The court also expressed concern that the motion for particulars was being used as a delay tactic, contrary to the goals of civil procedure reform.

The accused, Ivan Marincic, was sentenced for dangerous driving simpliciter after a motor vehicle collision caused life-altering injuries to another driver.

The sentencing hearing addressed whether the court had jurisdiction to award damages or costs for serious Charter violations by police during Marincic's arrest.

The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to award civil damages or costs in a criminal proceeding, emphasizing that such remedies must be sought through civil actions.

Despite the severe police misconduct, a stay of proceedings was deemed inappropriate due to the seriousness of the offence and the victim's injuries.

As a remedy for the Charter violations, the court imposed a significantly reduced sentence of nine months, to be served as a conditional sentence.

The applicant, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), sought to register an Alberta judgment in Ontario without notice to the respondent.

The court found that CMHC failed to establish that the respondent was personally served with the "original action" (the Alberta application for a new judgment) and that the respondent did not appear or defend in that action.

Consequently, under s. 2(2) of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act (REJA), CMHC was required to give reasonable notice.

The application was adjourned, and CMHC was ordered to proceed on notice to the respondent, with the court also noting concerns regarding the quality of CMHC's affidavit evidence and the calculation of the judgment amount.

The defendant, Northbridge General Insurance Corporation, brought a motion seeking leave to amend its statement of defence to withdraw an admission that it insured the loss vehicle.

The court granted the motion, applying the three-part test for withdrawing an admission.

It found that the proposed amendment raised a triable issue, the admission was inadvertent due to time constraints and incomplete investigation, and the withdrawal would not result in non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff, Nissan Canada Inc., as Nissan was aware of Northbridge's denial of coverage well before the limitation period expired to sue other parties.

The defendant brought a s. 276 application to cross-examine the complainant on five lines of inquiry regarding her past sexual activity and non-disclosure, aiming to challenge the link between the alleged assault and pregnancy.

The court allowed inquiry into the complainant's understanding of pregnancy-causing sexual activity, her initial denial of sexual activity, and whether other sexual activities could have caused pregnancy, with limitations.

However, the court disallowed questioning on the non-disclosure of alleged assaults by the defendant's brothers and the nature and circumstances of those alleged assaults, finding them irrelevant or unduly prejudicial and offending the collateral fact rule.

The decision emphasizes balancing the accused's right to full answer and defence with the protection of the complainant under s. 276 of the Criminal Code.

The respondent brought a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant opposed, seeking to buy out the respondent's share and arguing that financial disclosure was delayed.

The court found that the respondent's pleading was sufficient to invoke the Partition Act.

While acknowledging the respondent's prima facie right to sale, the court delayed the sale to allow the applicant time to secure financing for a buyout, given the recent receipt of financial disclosure and the children's best interests.

If financing is not secured by a set date, the home must be listed for sale.

This is a placeholder decision indicating that the full reasons for the judgment in the criminal case of R. v. Beisner, Hanna and Pabla are not yet available.

The applicants, a lawyer and her firm, sought judgment against the respondent for $564,707.47 plus interest and costs.

The applicants had paid this amount to discharge a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) lien on the respondent's property, which they had undertaken to clear during a property sale.

The respondent had previously provided incomplete lien discharge statements and refused to grant the applicants direct access to his CRA account, leading to the execution of a declaration and indemnity agreement.

The respondent argued the indemnity was ambiguous (contra proferentem) or that he did not understand its nature (non est factum), and alternatively, that unjust enrichment did not apply.

The court dismissed the respondent's arguments, finding the indemnity clear and applicable, and that the elements of unjust enrichment were met.

Judgment was granted in favour of the applicants.

The plaintiff sought a contempt order against the defendant corporation and its director for repeated failure to comply with court orders to answer undertakings from a judgment debtor examination.

Despite multiple adjournments and assurances, the undertakings remained incomplete.

The court declared the defendant in breach of the orders but, exercising restraint, deferred an immediate contempt finding.

It granted the defendant one final opportunity to comply by a specified date, failing which the contempt motion would proceed.

The court also ordered the defendant and its director to pay costs to the plaintiff.

This eight-day trial addressed the validity of a Separation Agreement, child support, and parenting arrangements.

The court upheld the Separation Agreement as valid, allowing the applicant to purchase the matrimonial home for $50,000 plus prejudgment interest, with CRA liens to be resolved by the applicant paying the CRA directly.

The respondent's claims to set aside the agreement, for occupation rent, spousal support, and pension equalization were dismissed.

The court ordered the respondent to pay ongoing child support of $556 per month and retroactive child support of $15,819.72, along with 38% of past and future s.7 expenses (except post-secondary, which are 50/50).

Joint decision-making responsibility for the child was maintained.

The applicant, an estate trustee, sought to set aside the respondent's Notice of Objection to the deceased's will and expedite the issuance of a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee.

The respondent, the deceased's brother, had filed an objection asserting the will was "fake" and that he, as "first kin" was entitled to the estate assets, but provided no evidence and did not attend the hearing.

The court, applying Rules 75.03 and 75.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, ordered a hearing to determine the respondent's standing, requiring him to provide an affidavit supporting his assertion by a specific date, with the applicant having an opportunity to respond.

The defendant, Matthew Pecore, brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking a stay of charges for sexual assault due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the information being sworn to the anticipated end of trial was 27 months and 7 days, which is below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court matters.

The delay was primarily attributed to new memories from the complainant leading to further charges and a change in trial complexity and dates, including a direct indictment moving the case to Superior Court.

The court found that while the new disclosure inevitably caused delay, it was not attributable to the fault of any party, and the overall delay was not "markedly unreasonable" when balancing the interests of the accused, victims, and public confidence in the justice system.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The reasons for this decision are not available at this time.

This is an appeal of a decision by the Chief Building Official (CBO) of the Municipality of Mississippi Mills regarding building permit fees and development charges.

The Applicant, 2755249 Ontario Inc., sought permits for the conversion and renovation of a former seniors' residence into apartments.

The CBO assessed the units as new construction, leading to higher fees, and subsequently failed to issue a permit for Phase II of the project.

The court found the CBO's decision to categorize the renovation and expansion of existing units as new construction to be unreasonable and incorrect.

The appeal was granted, the CBO's decision was set aside, and specific fee amounts were ordered for both Phase I and Phase II, with a building permit to be issued upon payment.

The defendant sought an adjournment of a five-week civil jury trial on the grounds of late document disclosure regarding the plaintiff's tip income.

The plaintiff opposed, citing prejudice due to the seven-year delay since the accident, witness availability, and increasing monetary thresholds.

The court denied the adjournment, finding that suitable measures could mitigate prejudice to the defendant and that the prejudice to the plaintiff and the broader impact on the administration of justice outweighed the defendant's need for delay.

The requestors brought a motion to summon the former Chief Adjudicator of the Indian Residential Schools Adjudication Secretariat to provide evidence at an upcoming hearing of a Request for Directions (RFD) brought by Canada.

Canada's RFD sought to strike the requestors' own RFD regarding compliance with ancillary orders.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the former Chief Adjudicator's evidence regarding his conduct or failure to bring an RFD was not relevant to the narrow interpretation and procedural issues raised in Canada's RFD.