SCJ 2025

This decision addresses urgent motions regarding the residential schedule of four children, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and a proposed nesting arrangement following the separation of Laura Anne Fennema and Trevor William Harry Fennema.

The court found the parenting time issues urgent due to the children’s removal from their home and school, but dismissed other requests for lack of urgency.

The court declined to order exclusive possession or nesting, primarily because of the Applicant’s criminal release conditions and the practicalities of the family farm.

The court ordered the children’s immediate return to their home with the Respondent and set a detailed interim parenting schedule, emphasizing the children’s best interests and stability.

The respondent, Serafim Beites, moved for an order granting him exclusive possession of real property jointly owned with the applicant, Kimberly Ann Beites, in Texas, and for an order restraining the applicant from attending that property.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a preservation or restraining order under section 12 of the Family Law Act was not necessary to protect an equalization payment, and that the value of the Texas property was insignificant compared to the parties' other assets.

The court also questioned its jurisdiction to grant exclusive possession of foreign-owned real property and declined to exercise exceptional in personam jurisdiction in the circumstances.

This costs endorsement addresses the entitlement and quantum of costs following a family law trial between Christine Anonby and Erik Anonby.

The court finds the mother was the successful party on the primary parenting issue and partially successful on property issues.

The court awards the mother $85,000 in costs, finding her billings reasonable and the father’s litigation conduct not unreasonable except for the division of chattel.

The decision reviews the legal framework for costs in family law, the conduct of the parties, and the proportionality and reasonableness of the costs sought.

This decision concerns an application to vary or revoke a publication ban under section 486.51 of the Criminal Code.

The complainant, M.C., requested that the publication ban regarding her identity be revoked, while a witness, A.B., wished the ban to remain in place for her own identity.

The court granted the application in part, rescinding the publication ban as it related to M.C. but maintaining it for A.B., emphasizing the legislative purpose of such bans and the statutory rights of witnesses.

The decision concerns a motion by the Defendants to amend their Statement of Defence in an estate dispute regarding whether a $160,000 transfer from the deceased to his cousin was a loan or a gift.

The court finds that the proposed amendments do not constitute a withdrawal of admissions, and grants leave to amend under Rule 26.01, as no non-compensable prejudice to the Plaintiff is established.

The ruling clarifies the distinction between factual and legal admissions in pleadings and the applicable test for amendments.

This decision concerns two related shareholder applications under section 241 of the Canada Business Corporations Act involving SpassMed Inc. and its affiliates.

The court reviews the procedural history, including consolidation of the applications, amendments to the relief sought, and the appointment of an interim monitor.

Due to significant disputes of fact and credibility, the court orders that the consolidated application be converted to an action to allow for a full trial process.

The case concerns whether an assessor appointed under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 must provide disclosure of materials collected and reviewed prior to a capacity assessment, and whether the assessor and the Consent and Capacity Board considered the correct factors relevant to the management of property.

The court held that there is no legal obligation for the assessor to provide such disclosure in advance, and that the Board did not err in its application of the legal test for capacity.

The appeal was dismissed.

The court dismissed Steven Howell’s defamation action against Tracy Cullen, Manager of Licensing at the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO), as frivolous and vexatious.

The court found that Ms. Cullen was protected by statutory immunity for actions taken in good faith within the scope of her employment, and that Mr. Howell’s claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court also fixed costs against Mr. Howell in the amount of $15,000.

The plaintiff, Esther Gerstel Inc. (EGI), brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant, Denise Michelle Scott, for payment of amounts due under a mortgage and for possession of the mortgaged property.

The only issue was the amount owing, as the defendant acknowledged some amount was due.

The court found this was an appropriate case for summary judgment, holding that the principal and interest claimed by EGI were established, but that two renewal fees were not.

The court ordered payment of the principal and interest, but not the disputed renewal fees, and granted EGI possession of the property, with a 45-day period for the defendant to pay before enforcement.

The College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) sought a court order validating its by-laws and articles, which had been amended over a decade without compliance with the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act (CNCA) due to erroneous legal advice.

The court found that the CFPC had failed to hold required separate class votes for membership changes, rendering its constating documents improperly enacted.

The Resident Doctors of Canada, while generally supporting the application, sought restoration of voting rights for family medicine residents.

The court held that section 288(4) of the CNCA provided broad remedial powers to validate the documents and to reclassify family medicine residents as voting members.

The application was granted, validating the CFPC’s by-laws and articles nunc pro tunc and restoring voting rights to family medicine residents.

This decision concerns a status hearing in a civil action for damages for sexual assault.

The plaintiff, A.B., was required to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for delay.

The court found that A.B. provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, primarily due to the parties' agreement to await the completion of related criminal proceedings and the production of Wagg documents before proceeding with discoveries.

The court also found that the defendants would not suffer non-compensable prejudice if the action continued.

The motion was granted, allowing the action to proceed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The court considered a motion to strike all claims against Patricia France, the former President of St. Clair College, in an action by Waseem Habash for breach of contract, defamation, injurious falsehood, and related torts.

The court partially granted the motion, striking only the claim for intentional interference with contractual and/or economic relations, but granted leave to amend the claim for inducing breach of contract.

The court found that the pleadings for defamation and injurious falsehood were sufficient to proceed, as was the claim for inducing breach of contract (subject to amendment), and that there was an arguable basis for personal liability against Ms. France.

The court was asked to decide between the debtors’ application for protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and the Toronto-Dominion Bank’s application for the appointment of a receiver.

After reviewing the facts and arguments, the court concluded that it was most just and convenient to appoint a receiver, dismissing the CCAA application.

The decision reviews the history of the debtors’ restructuring efforts, the positions of the parties, and the legal principles governing the choice between CCAA and receivership, ultimately finding that the interests of the senior secured creditor should prevail in the circumstances.

The court considered a motion regarding the sale of a jointly owned home and interim spousal support following the breakdown of a 26-year common-law relationship between two retired medical doctors.

The applicant sought the sale of the home and spousal support; the respondent sought a resulting trust and a vesting order.

The court found the property was intended to be held jointly, dismissed the resulting trust claim, ordered the property to be listed for sale, and awarded interim spousal support to the applicant.

The court considered a motion by the defendants to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim as vexatious and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff, Susan Lorraine Jones-Moore, brought a civil action against her former spouse and related corporate defendants, alleging a range of torts including stalking, invasion of privacy, sexual harassment, libel, and slander, much of which overlapped with issues previously litigated in family court.

The court found that the claim was largely an attempt to re-litigate matters already resolved or statute-barred, and that the pleadings were deficient, speculative, and unsupported by material facts.

The claim was dismissed as vexatious and an abuse of the court’s process.

The court considered an application to exclude drug evidence on the basis of alleged breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The applicant, Zachary Telford, was arrested for impaired operation after being found asleep in his vehicle, and subsequently charged with possession of fentanyl and other drugs.

The court found that there were reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and that the subsequent searches and demands were lawful.

The only Charter breach identified was a 20-minute delay in facilitating access to duty counsel, which was found to be minor and not to justify exclusion of the evidence.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed P.P.'s appeal from convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault, finding that the trial judge erred in admitting irrelevant and prejudicial letters written years before the alleged offences and in permitting evidence of privileged marital communications without a valid waiver.

The cumulative effect of these errors undermined the credibility assessment of the defence and required a new trial.

The decision concerns a motion by creditors Jennifer Look-Hong and Geoffrey MacKay in the bankruptcy of The Aggressive Good Inc. The motion sought, among other things, to challenge the eligibility of Christopher Falconi to act as an inspector and to have his votes at the first meeting of creditors revoked.

The court found that the Trustee made a palpable and overriding error in determining the date Mr. Falconi ceased to be a director, and that Mr. Falconi was not dealing at arm’s length with the debtor within the year prior to bankruptcy.

The court also found that Mr. Falconi was ineligible to act as an inspector due to his involvement in contested actions against the estate.

The motion was granted, and the order was signed as requested, with a new meeting of creditors to be held.