SCJ 2025

The plaintiff bank brought a contempt penalty motion against the defendant, who had been found in contempt for failing to attend a court-ordered examination in aid of execution.

Despite multiple orders compelling attendance and document production, the defendant repeatedly failed to comply, including failing to attend the penalty hearing itself.

The court ordered the defendant to pay costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $15,587.50 for the penalty hearing, a failed examination where the defendant claimed not to speak English, and a subsequent examination the defendant failed to attend.

The applicant, David Rossetti, sought a vesting order for property in Elizabethtown, Ontario, to be held by himself and Anthony Joseph Rossetti as tenants in common, each with a 50% interest.

The court addressed procedural issues regarding service and representation of several respondent estates and the inability to locate the trustee in bankruptcy for one co-owner.

The court granted the requested vesting order, finding the procedural requirements satisfied and the equities favouring the applicant, and ordered the land registry to be amended accordingly.

The court determined the equalization of net family property following a four-year marriage between Supreet Walia and Ashutosh Walia.

The applicant, Supreet Walia, sought an unequal division, alleging the respondent understated his net family property and hid assets.

The court dismissed claims against the respondent’s parents and their company, focusing solely on the spouses.

After detailed analysis of assets, liabilities, and credibility, the court found Supreet Walia entitled to an equalization payment of $19,098.74, plus pre-judgment interest, rejecting claims for unequal division based on unconscionability or family violence.

This endorsement addresses three related matters: the appointment of B. Riley Farber Inc. as receiver over the property of the respondents, the granting of a Mareva injunction against Sanford Sussman, and the scheduling of a motion to appoint representative counsel for investors in mortgages brokered and administered by Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc. The court finds the appointment of a receiver to be in the public interest and just and convenient, and grants the Mareva injunction on consent.

The endorsement also sets out the background of the proceedings, the issues to be determined, and the reasons for the orders made.

The Applicants, The Cannabist Company Holdings (Canada) Inc. and 16834434 Canada Inc., sought an interim order under section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) to approve a plan of arrangement and to direct the holding of a meeting of Senior Noteholders.

The Court granted the interim order, finding the Applicants acted in good faith and met the statutory requirements.

The Court also approved the classification of all Senior Noteholders as a single class for voting purposes, rejecting the respondent's argument for separate classes.

The order included a limited stay of proceedings and set out the process for the upcoming meeting and final order hearing.

The respondent, Niman Mamo LLP, brought a motion on consent for a sealing order over all materials filed in the court file, citing solicitor-client privilege and ongoing litigation.

The court found that the materials filed did not meet the requirements for a sealing order as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada, most recently in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25.

The court emphasized the presumption of openness in court proceedings and the need for strong, evidence-based grounds to override this principle.

The motion was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses a motion by Sandvine Corporation and related entities under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act for approval of a Stalking Horse Transaction Agreement, a vesting order, and related relief.

The court denied an adjournment request by Telecom Egypt, found that all statutory and procedural requirements were met, and approved the transaction, assignments, limited releases, sealing of confidential materials, enhanced monitor powers, and an extension of the stay of proceedings.

The defendants, Lee Darvin Weinkauf and Merlie Otadora Weinkauf, brought a motion to set aside their noting in default and a default judgment obtained by RFA Bank of Canada in a mortgage enforcement action.

The court reviewed the chronology of the mortgage default, the parties' communications, and the applicable legal test for setting aside default judgments.

The court found that the defendants did not provide a plausible excuse for their failure to defend, nor did they establish an arguable defence on the merits.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

This order grants the motion of the defendants, Carehaus Properties Inc. and Darren Voros, allowing their crossclaim to proceed and confirming it was never deemed dismissed.

The court also orders the responding parties, IHA Canada Inc., Louise Desjardins, and William Kerr, to pay the moving parties $6,500.00 in costs within 30 days, with interest accruing at four percent per year from February 8, 2025.

The court sentenced Sukhraj Singh, who pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, to two years less a day to be served as a conditional sentence in the community, followed by two years of probation.

The decision reviews the relevant sentencing principles, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the applicable case law, ultimately finding that a conditional sentence is appropriate given the offender’s background, addiction, and compliance with strict bail conditions for four years.

During a class action trial involving cosmetic surgery patients and allegations related to social media consent forms, the defendants called a witness and sought to qualify him as an expert in eDiscovery document collection and retention.

The plaintiffs objected on the basis that the witness lacked independence and impartiality, having blindly followed counsel's instructions and failed to ensure compliance with PHIPA.

The court ruled that the proposed evidence was factual in nature rather than expert opinion, as the witness was simply explaining the steps he took and the data he extracted from electronic medical records.

Since the evidence was factual and not presumptively inadmissible opinion evidence, the court did not need to address the impartiality objections, but noted that cross-examination on those issues could be relevant to the weight of the evidence.

The plaintiff moved for default judgment against a defendant noted in default who had fraudulently induced him to advance large sums of money on promises of investment returns.

The court granted default judgment awarding $327,850 in liquidated damages, $250,000 in general damages for losses due to the defendant's dishonest conduct, and $100,000 in punitive damages for reprehensible conduct in taking advantage of an unsophisticated person and depriving him of much of his life savings.

The court also awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $89,448.60, exceeding the amount sought by the plaintiff, based on the Bill of Costs and the defendant's conduct.

The respondent in a family law application moved under r. 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to set aside an order noting her in default for failing to serve and file an answer.

The court held it had no jurisdiction to set aside the noting of default under r. 25(19) because the respondent had proper notice and was physically present at the motion.

The court also declined to adopt a procedure analogous to r. 19.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding no gap in the FLRs warranted filling.

Even if jurisdiction existed, the court would not have exercised its discretion in the respondent's favour given her unexplained and unreasonable failure to comply with the rules over nearly a year.

Family law trial following a 21-year marriage in which the applicant sought divorce, sole decision-making responsibility in consultation with the respondent, a shared parenting schedule, imputed income for the respondent, equalization, and post-separation adjustments.

The respondent, who was self-represented, sought primary residence of the children, table child support, spousal support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court ordered joint decision-making responsibility, an equal alternating-week parenting schedule, retroactive child and spousal support based on imputed incomes for both parties, an equalization payment owed by the respondent to the applicant including a negative inference for undisclosed jewellery, and post-separation adjustments for carrying costs on jointly owned properties.

The defendant municipality appealed an interlocutory order of an Associate Justice granting the plaintiff leave under Rule 31.03(2)(b) to conduct a limited, one-hour examination for discovery of a second corporate representative, supplemented by up to two pages of written questions.

The appellant argued the Associate Justice committed palpable and overriding errors by relying on a non-existent agreement between the parties regarding a hybrid examination process and by misapplying the strict test for examining a second corporate representative.

The court found the Associate Justice correctly applied the test from Fischer v. IG Investment Management Ltd., made findings grounded in the record, and fashioned a proportionate remedy addressing discovery incompleteness.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought motions to set aside Registrar's dismissal orders issued in May 2024 in two related inmate assault and conditions of confinement actions commenced in 2015.

Applying the Piedrahita framework, the court found the delay was adequately explained by consent timetables, pandemic disruptions, and counsel's early-2024 practice upheaval.

The motions were brought promptly after the dismissals became known, and the Crown did not demonstrate significant prejudice precluding a fair trial, particularly given its own participation in setting the litigation pace.

The dismissal orders were set aside and the actions reinstated on a strict enforceable timetable.

The applicant, the deceased's daughter, sought directions under r. 75.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the validity of her late father's 2024 will, which revoked a 2020 will and left virtually the entire estate to the respondent, his wife of fifteen years.

The applicant alleged lack of testamentary capacity due to serious health conditions and opioid medications, suspicious circumstances surrounding the will's preparation by a lay friend rather than a lawyer, and undue influence by the respondent.

The court applied the minimal evidentiary threshold from Neuberger Estate v. York and found that multiple witnesses confirmed the deceased was alert, coherent, and understood the contents of the will when he signed it.

The respondent successfully answered the allegations of suspicious circumstances and undue influence.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff landlord corporation brought an application under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 for a writ of possession and an order for payment of rent arrears and utilities, the monetary amounts exceeding the jurisdiction of the Landlord Tenant Board.

The respondent tenant admitted non-payment of rent but claimed he had been negotiating a business arrangement with the landlord's representative excusing him from payment.

The court found the respondent filed no sworn evidence supporting any such agreement and granted the relief sought, including a writ of possession, arrears, and partial indemnity costs of $4,250.00.

The plaintiff brought an action against her former common-law partner for repayment of loans totalling $209,700 advanced over the course of a ten-year relationship, compensation under a cohabitation agreement, damages for loss of income incurred while providing attendant care after the defendant's motorcycle accident, and punitive/mental distress damages.

The defendant's defence was struck and the matter proceeded as an undefended trial.

The court found a pattern of intimate partner coercive control and financial exploitation, holding the claims were not statute-barred as the plaintiff reasonably relied on the defendant's repeated promises of repayment until he blocked all communications in February 2014.

The court awarded $118,700 for unpaid loans, $19,607.94 in interest, $19,000 under the cohabitation agreement, $40,000 for loss of income while caregiving, and $15,000 in mental distress damages, plus prejudgment interest and costs.

The father brought a motion for a defined parenting schedule with the parties' three-year-old son, and the mother brought a cross-motion seeking sole decision-making responsibility and child support.

The court declined to make a temporary order on decision-making, finding it was not a pressing issue, but ordered the mother could enrol the child in Junior Kindergarten.

On parenting time, the court declined to apply the AFCC-O Parenting Plan Guide as a mandatory benchmark, disagreeing with the Divisional Court's apparent elevation of the Guide in Tremblay-Chartier v. Blanchette.

The court ordered a four-week rotating schedule giving the father midweek overnight and alternate weekend parenting time, balancing the child's need for stability against meaningful contact with the father in light of family violence allegations and the father's remedial steps.