SCJ 2025

The applicant, Douglas LaFramboise, sought to set aside a prior trial decision on the basis of alleged perjury and fraud by the respondent, Sylvia Zwaan, and her counsel.

The court found no new evidence or grounds to support the application, noting that the issues had already been litigated and dismissed at both the trial and appellate levels.

The motion was dismissed as an abuse of process, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

This decision addresses a motion by the plaintiffs for production and directions regarding claims of privilege over thousands of documents and answers to questions refused on discovery in a complex, multi-party commercial litigation.

The court reviews the legal principles governing solicitor-client privilege, litigation privilege, and common interest privilege, and applies them to various categories of documents and questions.

The court provides detailed directions on the production of documents, the sufficiency of evidence to support privilege claims, and the process for resolving ongoing disputes about privilege.

This endorsement addresses a case conference requested by Sergio Grillone, an undischarged bankrupt, seeking directions regarding his proposed appeal from a scheduling endorsement and related matters in ongoing bankruptcy proceedings.

The court finds that Mr. Grillone has no right of appeal from the scheduling endorsement, as no order has been made from which an appeal lies, and dismisses his proposed motion as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under rule 2.1.01.

The decision details the procedural history, the positions of the parties, and the court’s reasoning for dismissing the motion.

The Royal Bank of Canada applied for a bankruptcy order against Nuvoola Inc., which the debtor opposed primarily on jurisdictional grounds, arguing its head office had moved to Quebec.

The court analyzed the definition of the "locality of the debtor" under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, finding that the debtor's president, accounting records, and banking activities were centered in Ottawa, and that the debtor had agreed to Ontario jurisdiction in its commitment letters.

The court also determined that the debtor had committed an act of bankruptcy by failing to meet its liabilities generally as they became due.

Consequently, the court granted the application and issued the bankruptcy order, appointing MNP Inc. as the Licensed Insolvency Trustee.

The court sentenced Marlon Ramon-Vasquez for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The decision reviews the facts of the offence, the offender’s background, the impact of fentanyl on the community, and the applicable sentencing principles.

After considering aggravating and mitigating factors, including the offender’s youth, lack of criminal record, and significant rehabilitative steps, the court imposed a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment, along with ancillary orders.

This costs endorsement addresses the entitlement and quantum of costs following a successful motion by the defendant.

The court considers the timing of the defendant’s costs submissions, the scale of costs (partial vs. substantial indemnity), the effect of offers to settle, and the conduct of the parties.

The court ultimately awards the defendant $20,490 in costs, finding no basis for a higher scale and that the amount is reasonable and proportionate.

This endorsement addresses a motion regarding parenting time between Kristen McElroy (mother) and Ryan Andrew Spence (father) for their six-year-old child, Bryson McElroy.

The court reviews the parties’ parenting history, the mother’s unilateral changes to the father’s access, and allegations of substance abuse.

The court finds no evidence to justify supervised parenting time for the father and restores his regular access, emphasizing the child’s best interests and the need for cooperative co-parenting.

The court also orders the father to pay outstanding child support directly to the mother and provides directions for resolving costs.

This decision resolves the financial and support issues arising from the breakdown of an 18-year marriage between Grace Terna Ogunmekan and Kehinde Olusegun Ogunmekan.

The court addresses equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, child support, section 7 expenses, and spousal support.

The respondent’s lack of financial disclosure and inconsistent evidence led the court to treat certain undisclosed assets as cash for equalization purposes and to deny his spousal support claim.

The court orders significant equalization and support payments in favour of the applicant.

The court sentenced Dwaine Trapper Graham to nine years’ imprisonment for manslaughter, following a joint submission by Crown and defence.

Graham fatally stabbed Noran Leslie-Durrant with a broken golf club during an altercation.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offence, Graham’s background, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the applicable sentencing principles.

The sentence was reduced by credit for pre-trial custody and ordered to run concurrently with another sentence.

The court accepted the joint submission, finding it within the appropriate range for such offences.

The court considered whether Mohamed Siad should be designated a dangerous offender following a series of violent offences, primarily against intimate partners and family members.

After reviewing Siad’s history of escalating violence, repeated breaches of court orders, failed attempts at rehabilitation, and psychiatric evidence, the court found that Siad’s conduct was intractable and that he posed a high risk of future violence.

The court designated Siad a dangerous offender and imposed a global sentence of five years’ incarceration (after credit for pretrial custody), followed by a seven-year long-term supervision order, with ancillary orders including DNA and weapons prohibitions.

This is a trial ruling excluding proposed expert opinion evidence from a forensic accountant (Ivor Gottschalk) on quantification of lost rental revenue after a 2010 explosion and fire.

The court held the evidence failed the necessity requirement and the expert lacked independence and an investigative mindset; the gatekeeping cost-benefit analysis also favoured exclusion.

The ruling was made after a voir dire held Feb 19–20, 2025, and reasons were issued Feb 27, 2025.

The applicant, a mortgagee under a matured and defaulted Vendor Take Back mortgage, applied for the appointment of a court-appointed receiver over a commercial property in Ottawa.

The respondent mortgagor opposed the application, disputing the validity and amount of the debt in separate ongoing proceedings in Toronto.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of insolvency to engage the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and no underlying proceeding to support an interlocutory receivership under the Courts of Justice Act.

Additionally, the court noted that receivership is an extraordinary remedy, the mortgage lacked a contractual receivership clause, and there was sufficient equity in the property to protect the debt.

On a Crown application in a sexual assault prosecution, the court granted testimonial accommodations permitting the complainant to testify by CCTV and with a support person present.

Applying the post-2015 wording of ss. 486.2 and 486.1 of the Criminal Code, the court held that the relevant threshold is whether the order would facilitate the giving of a full and candid account or otherwise serve the proper administration of justice, not whether exceptional circumstances or necessity were shown.

The court accepted evidence from a treating psychotherapist that the complainant experienced intense anxiety and dissociation when discussing the alleged offences and found those accommodations would reduce distress and make it easier to testify.

The court rejected the submission that credibility assessment or jury fairness would be materially impaired by video testimony.

The plaintiff, Marper Holdings Limited, sought summary judgment to enforce a mortgage debt against Foxpark Development Corporation, Carl Strand, and John Strand.

The court found that the defendants had defaulted on a $2 million loan secured by a mortgage, and that the individual defendants were liable as guarantors.

The court also dismissed the defendants' counterclaim, finding it disclosed no cause of action.

Judgment was granted for the full amount claimed, plus interest and costs, and Marper was granted possession of the property.

The court grants sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the child to the applicant, Melis Kocabas, following a history of family violence and the respondent's non-participation.

The court also imputes income to the respondent, Yavuz Polat, for child support purposes, orders retroactive and ongoing support, and issues a restraining order for the safety of the applicant and child.

The decision applies the best interests of the child test, the law on imputation of income, and the principles for granting restraining orders.

The appellant father appealed a parenting variation order arising from a motion to change under the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The appeal challenged the continuation of sole decision-making with the mother, limits on the father’s proactive contact with the child’s service providers, the exchange location, the refusal of video calls, the adjournment of the SIN issue, and the timing of compliance with a name-change term.

The court held that the applicable standard was palpable and overriding error and found that the motion judge had conducted the required fresh best-interests inquiry after a conceded material change in circumstances.

The evidentiary record supported findings of high parental conflict, controlling behaviour, and excessive communications with providers that risked disrupting care for a medically vulnerable child.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce signed Minutes of Settlement reached shortly before a scheduled family property trial concerning alleged beneficial ownership of two residential condominiums.

The defendants argued the action should proceed because they were rushed, distressed, and did not understand the terms.

The court found a binding settlement had been reached on all essential terms, preferred the evidence of former defence counsel over the defendants' evidence, and held that subjective after-the-fact misunderstanding did not displace the objective meaning of the written agreement.

The court further held that this was not one of the rare cases where compelling circumstances made enforcement contrary to the interests of justice.

Judgment was ordered in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement.

The court considered three motions under the Family Law Rules: one by the applicant to note the respondent in default for failing to respond to a motion to change, and two by the respondent that did not comply with the Rules.

The court granted the respondent a brief extension to comply and struck most of her non-compliant materials.

The decision discusses the respondent's repeated non-compliance, her excuses, and the importance of following procedural rules, especially in family law matters involving children.

The court dismissed the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action arising from a 2015 motor vehicle collision.

The defendant argued the action was statute-barred, but the court found the limitation period did not begin to run until the plaintiff received a diagnosis in July 2020 that clarified the severity and cause of her injuries.

The court held that the plaintiff acted diligently and that there was not a sufficient body of evidence to support a claim until the feedback session with Dr. Day.

The action was therefore commenced in time.

The applicant law firm sought a charging order against its former client, Christine Roberts, and her accident benefits insurer, Chubb Insurance Company of Canada, for legal fees and disbursements incurred in pursuing accident benefits and a potential tort claim.

The court found that the statutory and common law criteria for a charging order or lien were not met, as there was no property recovered or preserved through the solicitor’s efforts.

The court also noted that any assignment of SABS benefits would be void by statute.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.