SCJ 2025

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sought a garnishment order against H & M Flooring Inc. to recover a judgment debt owed by Hussein El Hossaini.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, finding that RBC failed to provide sufficient evidence of the amount, if any, owed by the garnishee to the debtor.

The court emphasized that a failure to respond to a garnishment notice does not create a presumption that the full amount claimed is owed, and that reliable evidence of the debt is required before a garnishment order can be made.

Cette décision porte sur une motion de Facinet-Bigus Bangoura visant à obtenir l'autorisation de modifier sa déclaration introductive d’instance contre l’Université Algoma.

La Cour examine la suffisance des causes d’action proposées, notamment en diffamation, discrimination, violation d’équité procédurale et rupture de contrat.

La juge Perron conclut que la déclaration amendée ne révèle aucune cause d’action fondée contre l’université et que l’action constitue un recours abusif visant à contester une décision académique déjà tranchée.

La motion est rejetée et des dépens sont accordés à la défenderesse.

The decision concerns an estate dispute between Glen Last and Craig Last (personally and as joint Estate Trustee for the Estate of Jacqueline Last), with TD Canada Trust as a respondent.

Glen alleged that Craig misappropriated significant estate assets and failed to account for his management of the estate, seeking a reduction of Craig’s share and other relief.

The court found that Craig failed to provide a proper accounting, drew an adverse inference, and ordered a substantial reduction of Craig’s share of the estate, as well as costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The accused, Matthew Christopher Reis, was charged with possession of a Schedule I substance (crystal methamphetamine) for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The trial turned on whether Mr. Reis had knowledge and control of the drugs found in a brown purse he was holding during a medical emergency involving another individual.

The court found that while Mr. Reis had control of the purse, the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he had knowledge of its contents.

Mr. Reis was acquitted.

This decision concerns the prosecution of Aysar Younes for two counts each of impaired driving/over 80 causing death and dangerous driving causing death, arising from a fatal collision on Highway 2 in Trenton, Ontario.

The court addresses the admissibility and reliability of blood alcohol evidence, the continuity of evidence, and the legal standards for impaired and dangerous driving causing death.

The court finds the evidence of blood alcohol concentration and impairment reliable and sufficient, and concludes that Younes' conduct constituted a marked departure from the standard of care, resulting in conviction on all counts.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of expert evidence from Cara Shepard, a forensic toxicologist, in the trial of Aysar Younes for impaired and dangerous driving causing death.

The court found that while Ms. Shepard’s evidence regarding cocaine use was necessary and within her expertise, it lacked probative value on the issue of impairment or crash phase at the time of the collision and was therefore inadmissible for that purpose.

However, the court allowed the evidence for the limited purpose of establishing continuity of the blood sample.

The defendant, Jama Saban, brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on the issue of liability for a motor vehicle accident involving the plaintiff, Micheal Nelson.

The court reviewed dashcam evidence and affidavits from both parties.

The court found that while the plaintiff rear-ended the defendant, there was evidence that the defendant may have stopped unnecessarily and without checking his rearview mirror, potentially contributing to the accident.

As a result, the court held that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial on liability and dismissed the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The applicant, Grant Allen McDonald, sought a declaration that the respondent estate trustees breached an agreement of purchase and sale after a fire destroyed the subject property before closing.

The applicant wanted to proceed with the sale, subject to a guarantee of minimum insurance proceeds.

The court found that the applicant’s insistence on a guaranteed amount of insurance proceeds constituted a repudiation of the agreement, entitling the respondents to terminate the agreement and retain the deposit.

The application for specific performance or relief from forfeiture was dismissed.

The decision grants summary judgment to the plaintiffs, who were defrauded of $2.65 million in a real estate investment scheme involving a solicitor’s law firm, his office manager/mother, and an in-house mortgage broker.

The court finds the solicitor and his firm liable for breach of trust, negligence, and fiduciary duty, and holds the property company and its principals jointly and severally liable.

The court awards compensatory and punitive damages, as well as substantial indemnity costs.

The court considered whether to bifurcate the issue of the validity of a Cohabitation Agreement from the remaining family law claims following the parties’ separation.

The Applicant sought to have the Agreement declared void and advanced claims for spousal support, equalization, unjust enrichment, and a trust in the matrimonial home.

The Respondent moved to have the validity of the Agreement determined first.

The court reviewed the legal framework for bifurcation, including the relevant rules and case law, and concluded that the validity of the Agreement was a discrete, threshold issue.

The court ordered that the issue of validity be tried first, finding this approach would be just, expeditious, and cost-effective, and would not prejudice either party.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings entered after the trial judge found multiple Charter breaches, including a pat down search by a male officer that involved touching under the respondent’s breast area.

The Superior Court found that the search was brief, professional, and not unreasonable in the circumstances, and that there was no breach of sections 7, 8, or 12 of the Charter.

The stay was set aside and the matter remitted for sentencing.

The court considered the appropriate scope of a mistrial declaration following a breach of the applicant’s right to full and complete disclosure under section 7 of the Charter.

The applicant sought a mistrial only on the counts for which he was convicted, while the Crown argued for a mistrial on all counts.

The court found that the undisclosed evidence would not have affected the acquittal on the third count and granted a mistrial only on counts 1 and 2, leaving the acquittal on count 3 undisturbed.

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.

This decision addresses Charter applications by Tutshuma (Paul) Munda and Ade Munda, who were charged with firearms offences following a police search.

The court found that police used excessive force against Paul Munda when he was kicked in the face while handcuffed, breaching his s. 7 Charter rights, and that there was a 22-minute unreasonable delay in facilitating his right to counsel, breaching s. 10(b).

However, the evidence was not excluded, though a sentencing reduction was ordered if convicted.

The court dismissed all Charter claims by Ade Munda, finding the police use of force and delay in providing rights to counsel reasonable, and that inaccuracies in a police synopsis did not materially affect his bail hearing.

The court considered motions regarding the production of documents and attendance at discovery in a dispute over unpaid legal fees between a law firm and its former client.

The plaintiff law firm sought to strike the defence or compel the defendant to provide an affidavit of documents and attend discovery.

The defendant cross-moved for a further and better affidavit of documents from the plaintiff, including the law firm's accident benefits file.

The court held that both parties must fulfill their discovery obligations independently, ordered production of the accident benefits file (with privilege claims to be listed in Schedule B), and declined to strike the defence.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.

This decision concerns an application by Martin Duah for a review of his detention under s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant argued that the original justice erred in law, failed to provide sufficient reasons, and that there was a material change in circumstances.

The court reviewed the evidence, including new sureties and a revised release plan, but ultimately found the plan insufficient to address secondary ground concerns regarding public safety and supervision.

The application was dismissed and the applicant was ordered detained.

The court considered a motion by self-represented lead plaintiffs in a proposed class action challenging workers’ compensation regimes across Canada.

The plaintiffs sought an order requiring the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) to pay their legal costs, or alternatively, the appointment of amicus curiae or permission for the lead plaintiffs to represent the class.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action for failure to comply with Rule 15, which requires representative parties to be represented by counsel.

The court held that compliance with Rule 15.01(1) is mandatory and that the plaintiffs could not represent the class.

The court declined to appoint amicus curiae or grant an interim advance cost award, finding no exceptional circumstances or evidence of financial need.

The action was stayed pending the plaintiffs’ retention of counsel.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s action as frivolous under rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, Shaukat Ali, failed to plead a cause of action or provide material facts supporting a claim against the defendant, Peel Police (11 Division).

The court found the claim lacked legal merit and reasonable grounds, and the plaintiff did not respond to an invitation to provide submissions.

The action was dismissed without costs.

This endorsement addresses motions by the court-appointed Monitors in the ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings involving JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited and Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The Monitors sought approval for amendments to the CCAA Plans to resolve the allocation of a $750 million working capital holdback among the Tobacco Companies.

The only opposition came from the Heart and Stroke Foundation, which objected as a social stakeholder but was found to lack standing.

The court granted the motions, finding the amendments did not adversely affect any creditors and were appropriate in the circumstances.