SCJ 2024

This criminal proceeding, styled His Majesty the King v. Quesnel, currently lacks published reasons for decision, indicating that the full judicial rationale and outcome are not yet publicly accessible.

This trial concerned a motion to change a 2006 final order regarding child and spousal support.

The Father sought to terminate child and spousal support and obtain reimbursement for overpayments.

The Mother sought continuation of support, retroactive s.7 expenses, and other reimbursements.

The court found the Father owed significant retroactive child support due to non-disclosure of income, but terminated ongoing child and spousal support.

The Mother was granted retroactive s.7 expenses from October 2018, but was ordered to reimburse the Father for spousal support overpayments.

The Mother's claims for tax penalty reimbursement and missed parenting time compensation were dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages arising from catastrophic failures of emergency generators at a hospital.

Defendants SDMO and Kohler moved to stay proceedings, arguing lack of jurisdiction or that Ontario was not an appropriate forum.

The court found Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter as the torts (property damage, failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation) occurred in the province.

The court also found the forum selection clause in the contract between SDMO and GAL Power was not properly before the court and would not apply to third parties or be enforceable against GAL Power.

Finally, the court determined Ontario was the most appropriate forum, considering the location of parties, witnesses, and evidence, and the existence of related proceedings.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Terrence Manuel, brought a claim against Lafarge Canada Inc. for damages arising from alleged workplace sexual harassment.

Manuel was terminated and signed a release.

Lafarge moved for summary judgment to enforce the release and dismiss the claim, while Manuel cross-moved to invalidate the release on grounds of lack of capacity, duress, and unconscionability.

The court granted Lafarge's motion and dismissed Manuel's, finding insufficient admissible evidence to support Manuel's claims of diminished capacity or that the release was signed under duress or was unconscionable.

The court emphasized the plaintiff's failure to provide qualified expert medical evidence linking his alleged psychological symptoms to the harassment or demonstrating a lack of capacity.

The applicant, Setareh Namdar, brought a motion under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to change or delete parts of a previous order made on March 25, 2024.

The applicant sought to remove sentences from paragraph 63 of the prior endorsement, arguing they mistakenly conflated 'property division' with 'equitable claims' and were made without proper notice regarding equitable claims.

The respondent, Amir Ali Maali, argued Rule 25(19) could not be used to reargue the case.

The court found it had jurisdiction under Rule 25(19)(d) because the issue of whether the Family Law Act applied to the applicant's specific equitable claims for unjust enrichment and joint family venture was not fully before the court or noticed.

The court clarified that while s.15 of the Family Law Act governs property rights based on habitual residence, it does not necessarily apply to all equitable claims, which are rooted in common law.

The motion was granted, and paragraph 63 of the prior endorsement was replaced to reflect this clarification.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) challenged the constitutionality of the Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act (PSRCA), SC 2018, c 25, arguing it infringed freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The legislation ended a series of rotating strikes and imposed a mediation-arbitration process.

The court found the application moot because the PSRCA was spent legislation, having led to new collective agreements, and there was no live controversy or suitable remedy.

However, in obiter, the court stated that if the matter were not moot, the PSRCA would infringe s. 2(d) but would be justified under s. 1 of the Charter, as it constituted a minimal impairment due to its fair and neutral dispute resolution mechanism, unlike previous unconstitutional back-to-work legislation.

A.R. was convicted by a jury of four counts of assault and one count of sexual assault against his intimate partner (R.V.), and one count of assault (choking) against his young son (K.R.).

The Crown sought a global 22-month sentence, two years probation, and a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order.

The defence sought an 18-month conditional sentence and opposed probation and SOIRA.

The court imposed a global sentence of 18 months imprisonment, two years probation, and a DNA order, but declined to impose a SOIRA order, finding a low risk of re-offending despite the serious nature of the domestic violence.

The Superior Court of Justice approved a class action settlement concerning the defendant's practice of automatically renewing mortgages at increased interest rates.

The court found the $1.5 million settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the arm's length negotiation and lack of objections.

Class counsel fees of $450,000 plus HST and disbursements were approved, being less than their hourly rate calculation and reflecting the significant risk undertaken.

However, the requested $15,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff was denied, as the court determined her contributions, while appropriate, did not meet the 'exceptional circumstances' threshold required for such an award.

This motion for default judgment was brought by Security National Insurance Company, as assignee of the plaintiff, against the at-fault operator, Anthony Williams, following a motor vehicle accident.

Williams had been noted in default.

The court assessed liability and damages, finding Williams liable and the $300,000 settlement paid by Security National to the plaintiff to be fair and reasonable compensation for her injuries, which included chronic pain and psychological issues meeting the Insurance Act threshold.

Default judgment was granted against Williams, along with costs.

The gaoler brought a detention review under s.525 of the Criminal Code for the accused, who was detained on drug charges.

The trial had already commenced and was nearing judgment.

The court dismissed the review, finding it lacked jurisdiction under s.525 because the trial had started, and any bail application at that stage must be made to the trial judge under s.523(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The plaintiffs, borrowers in a mortgage transaction, sued their own lawyers and the lender's lawyer.

The lender's lawyer brought a motion to strike the claim against her under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the motion, finding that the lender's lawyer owed no duty of care to the borrowers and that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action against her.

The claim was struck without leave to amend, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the moving party.

The Applicant sought an interim disbursement costs order of $150,000 to fund financial experts and counsel for an upcoming trial, arguing the Respondent had significant income.

The Respondent claimed financial destitution due to the commercial real estate market downturn.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion, finding she failed to provide sufficient evidence of her inability to fund the litigation from other sources (e.g., family loans) and lacked a detailed breakdown of future costs, as opposed to past expenses.

The court emphasized that interim cost awards are discretionary, limited to exceptional cases, and require clear demonstration of necessity and reasonableness for future litigation expenses.

This caselaw entry indicates that the reasons for the decision are not available at this time.

Therefore, no summary of the case facts, legal issues, or judicial reasoning can be provided.

This decision arises from a Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution (BJDR) hearing in a family law matter, resolving outstanding issues between separated spouses.

The court adjudicated disputes concerning the treatment of cell phone payments as Section 7 expenses, the inclusion of a personal debt (Fairstone) in the applicant's net family property, the allocation of post-secondary education expenses for the eldest child, the payment schedule for retroactive child support, and claims for occupation rent and contributions to the matrimonial home.

The court found cell phones to be Section 7 expenses, disallowed the Fairstone debt due to insufficient evidence, ordered retroactive child support as a lump sum from trust funds, and awarded occupation rent to the respondent while crediting the applicant for her contributions to the matrimonial home.

Final orders were made regarding child support, spousal support, equalization, and parenting arrangements.

The accused, M.U., was charged with seven counts of sexual assault and seven counts of sexual interference against his step-daughter, P.N., who was under 16 years of age at the time of the alleged offences (April 2013 - February 2017).

The trial was judge-alone.

The Crown's case relied on the complainant's testimony, which the court found intelligent, credible, and reliable despite minor inconsistencies.

The accused denied all allegations, but his testimony was deemed wholly incredible and rejected.

The court applied the principles from R. v. W.(D.) and found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all 14 counts.

The Respondent Father moved to vary a previous order to expand his parenting time with the child.

The Applicant Mother opposed, proposing a more restrictive expansion.

The court, considering the child's best interests and a s. 30 Assessment, granted a graduated expansion of the father's parenting time, including alternate weekends, midweek time, and extended summer holiday periods, while rejecting some of the father's specific requests regarding transitions and travel distance.

The court emphasized the importance of promoting the child's relationship with both parents despite high parental conflict.

The applicant, Raymond Reichert, brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the respondent's, Tamara Ann Bandola's, claims for spousal support.

The central issue was whether the parties qualified as "spouses" under s.29 of the Family Law Act, which requires continuous cohabitation for three years or more.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the determination of cohabitation involved complex facts and credibility issues.

The judge concluded that granting partial summary judgment would risk inconsistent findings with other intermingled claims, such as unjust enrichment and tort claims, which rely on the same factual matrix.

The court emphasized that hiving off this issue would not be more efficient and that a full trial with viva voce evidence was necessary to justly resolve the dispute.

The defendant, Xiao Yao Zi, brought a motion under Rule 21 to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim in a libel action, arguing it failed to disclose a cause of action because the defamatory article, in its certified English translation, did not identify the plaintiff, Yeung & Associates.

The plaintiff contended that despite the literal translation, the Chinese characters and accompanying images (photos of premises, website screenshots, social media posts) clearly identified them.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding it was not plain and obvious that the publication did not refer to the plaintiff, emphasizing that identification is a question of fact for trial and does not solely rely on literal translation.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to amend the pleadings to recast conspiracy allegations as malice within the libel claim and to clarify how the Chinese publication identified the plaintiff.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

This case addresses two motions concerning a child's schooling for Junior Kindergarten and a revised parenting schedule.

The court rejected the mother's proposal for a private religious school due to insufficient admissible evidence and potential parental conflict, ordering the child to attend Annandale Public School.

Regarding parenting time, the court maintained the existing time allocation (approximately 60% with the mother, 40% with the father) but implemented a new bi-weekly schedule to reduce the frequency of exchanges, rejecting both parents' proposals for substantial changes.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests, particularly emotional and psychological well-being, and the importance of admissible evidence on motions.

The plaintiffs, including a corporate entity and Dr. Earl Schwartz, brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that a medical office building they co-owned with the defendants (Dr. Martin Schwartz and Susan Schwartz) was a partnership asset, and to compel the defendants to sell their share to the corporate plaintiff at an appraised value.

The defendants denied the existence of a partnership and sought a sale of the property under the Partition Act.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' partnership claim, finding that the co-owners did not operate the building as a business with a view to profit, but rather primarily for their own professional use at cost.

The court ordered the sale of the property by the defendants on the open market and determined a financial reconciliation for ownership expenses, to be paid from the sale proceeds.

The plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages was also dismissed.