SCJ 2025

The applicant, Brandon Caleb, sought a stay of proceedings on the basis that the delay in bringing his case to trial violated his right under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court reviewed the procedural history, including the complexity of the Project Venom prosecution, the joining and severing of accused, and the Crown’s management of the case.

Applying the framework from R. v. Jordan, the court found that although the presumptive ceiling for delay was exceeded, the case was sufficiently complex and the Crown had a concrete plan to minimize delay.

Exceptional circumstances justified the delay, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant, Charles Thomas McNair, sought a declaration that his homeowner’s insurance policy with Aviva Insurance Company of Canada covered a claim arising from a fatal collision involving his Sea-Doo watercraft.

The court considered whether the policy’s 30-day grace period for newly acquired watercraft extended coverage to the Sea-Doo, which was powered by a jet-pump propulsion system.

The court found the policy ambiguous and, applying principles of insurance contract interpretation, held that the grace period did provide coverage.

The court also determined that the incident occurred within the 30-day grace period, as acquisition was defined by possession and control, not merely payment.

The court ordered Aviva to indemnify McNair for costs and disbursements incurred in defending the underlying action and awarded full indemnity costs.

This costs endorsement follows a judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Halime Khatoun Aghdasi, in a dispute over two properties.

The court found that the defendant, Vahid Mehdizadeh Asiyaban, engaged in reprehensible conduct, including fabricating evidence, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiff.

The decision reviews the applicable legal principles for costs, the scale of costs, and the quantum, ultimately awarding the plaintiff $279,495 in fees plus HST and disbursements.

The court determined the date of separation and whether a property was a matrimonial home in a family law dispute.

The applicant claimed separation occurred in 2007 and sought a declaration that the Madawaska property was a matrimonial home.

The respondent argued separation occurred in 2002 and that the property was not a matrimonial home.

After reviewing the evidence, including credibility assessments and the parties’ living arrangements, the court found the parties separated in December 2002 and that the Madawaska property was not a matrimonial home.

The court ordered the removal of the matrimonial home designation from the property’s title.

The court sentenced Matthew Elias, who pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, to a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation.

The decision details the disturbing facts of the offence, Elias’s personal circumstances, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court found that, despite the seriousness of the offence and the usual need for denunciation and deterrence, Elias’s significant mental health issues, genuine remorse, lack of criminal record, and severe collateral consequences justified a conditional sentence.

The decision applies recent appellate guidance on the range and principles for sentencing in child pornography cases.

The plaintiffs, John Jordan and William Nielson, sought damages from Commonwell Mutual Insurance Group and Finnegan Insurance Brokers Ltd. regarding a policy of insurance on a hunting camp and outbuildings destroyed by fire in 2018.

The plaintiffs alleged that Finnegan failed in its duty to ensure adequate insurance coverage and acted in bad faith, and that Commonwell improperly closed the file while issues remained.

The defendants moved for non-suit, arguing that replacement insurance was not available for this type of property and that the plaintiffs had been referred to arbitration.

The court granted the summary judgment motions, dismissing the claims against both defendants, finding no credible evidence to support the plaintiffs’ claims and that the settlement cheque issued was appropriate.

The defendant brought a motion seeking to substitute its General Manager as its representative for examination for discovery instead of its President, who was selected by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, a former employee, argued that the President was the only person with firsthand knowledge of the contract negotiations at the heart of the wrongful dismissal action.

Associate Justice Abrams denied the motion, finding that the President possessed sufficient knowledge of the matters in dispute and that examining him would not be oppressive.

The court concluded that substituting the representative would prejudice the plaintiff by filtering key evidence through a third party.

The court considered whether the assessment of costs following settlement should be conducted by an assessment officer or by a judge.

The plaintiffs sought to have the court fix costs, while the defendants argued for assessment by an assessment officer under Rule 57.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that, as the matter settled before trial and the court had only a cursory knowledge of the facts, the assessment should be conducted by an assessment officer as contemplated by the Rules.

The court encouraged the parties to attempt to resolve costs without assessment if possible.

This costs endorsement follows the granting of summary judgment in favour of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim.

The court addresses the appropriate quantum of costs, considering the parties’ submissions, the principle of proportionality, and the conduct of the litigation.

The court finds the defendants’ costs claim largely reasonable, with a minor reduction for a docketing error, and orders the plaintiffs to pay $43,500 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Bennington Financial Corp. against 2724112 Ontario Inc. and Christopher Graham for amounts owing under a commercial equipment lease.

The court found that the defendants' defences were fully answered by the plaintiff's evidence, including admissions of payment and execution of the lease, and that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court reserved on interest and costs, inviting written submissions.

The decision addresses a Charter application by Brandon Abrams regarding the timing of detention and the police obligation to hold off investigation until section 10(b) of the Charter is fully implemented.

The court finds that Abrams was not detained prior to his formal arrest, but that his section 10(b) rights were breached when police questioned him about new charges before he had a renewed opportunity to consult counsel.

The court excludes identity documents from evidence but admits drugs, an airsoft pistol, and drug paraphernalia.

The moving creditors, Antoine Dwyane Small and Whayne Small, brought a motion under section 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to lift the automatic stay of proceedings.

They sought to continue their civil fraud action against the bankrupt, Richard Nicholson, in which they claimed damages of approximately $500,000 for fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The bankrupt opposed the motion, while the trustee did not oppose it.

The court granted the motion, lifting the stay to allow the fraud action to proceed, finding that the creditors would be materially prejudiced by a continued stay and that it was equitable to do so.

The accused, Patrick King, was sentenced for offences including mischief, counselling mischief, counselling obstruction of police, and disobeying a court order arising from his leadership role in the 2022 "Freedom Convoy" protest in Ottawa.

The Crown sought a ten-year prison sentence, arguing the protest constituted an unprecedented occupation of the nation's capital, while the defence argued for time served and probation.

Justice Hackland rejected the Crown's position, noting that while the protest caused significant community harm, a ten-year sentence was disproportionate and lacked precedent.

The court sentenced the accused to a total of 12 months, consisting of nine months of pre-sentence credit and a three-month conditional sentence, followed by 12 months of probation.

The court determined the beneficial ownership of the matrimonial home at 261 Prescott Avenue, Toronto, following the breakdown of the marriage between Elena Reshetnikova and Wayne Rawlins.

Joan Rawlins Singh, Wayne’s mother, claimed a 100% beneficial interest in the property, while Wayne and Elena sought partition and sale.

After extensive review of the evidence, including family history, property transfers, and credibility of witnesses, the court found that Joan and Wayne each hold a 50% beneficial interest in the property.

The court ordered the sale of the property, set out terms for the sale, and awarded costs for an adjournment to the applicant.

The court considered cross-motions for interim spousal support, child support, interim disbursements, and a preservation order in the context of a high-conflict family law proceeding.

The Respondent (husband) sought spousal support and interim disbursements, while the Applicant (wife) sought to impute income to the Respondent, child support, and spousal support.

The court dismissed the Respondent’s motion, finding he failed to establish a prima facie case for spousal support and that his financial disclosure was not credible.

The court imputed income to the Respondent for child support purposes and granted the Applicant’s motion in part, awarding child support but not spousal support at this stage.

The court declined to make a preservation order or require leave for further motions but left open the possibility of such orders if non-compliance with costs orders continues.

The decision addresses a motion by the plaintiff, James Pushie, in a property dispute with Carmela Guidarelli following the breakdown of their romantic and business relationship.

The court considers the admissibility of evidence previously ruled inadmissible, the scope of evidence at trial, the amendment of pleadings, and ongoing disclosure obligations.

The court grants the plaintiff leave to amend his pleadings, clarifies that evidence previously excluded at the application stage may be tendered at trial subject to relevance and admissibility, and sets out procedural directions for the conduct of the trial.

This costs endorsement addresses the appropriate scale and quantum of costs following a jury trial in a fatal motor vehicle accident case.

The court reviews the application of the Victims’ Bill of Rights, the reasonableness of the costs claimed, the effect of contingency fee agreements, and the impact of offers to settle.

Substantial indemnity costs are awarded throughout, reduced by 5% for contributory negligence, resulting in a total award of $490,368.86 to the plaintiffs.

The court considered a claim for lien and breach of contract by Zagros Homes Development Inc. against the owners and construction manager/general contractor of a residential construction project.

The court found that Zagros had a valid subcontract with Cando 1 Construction Inc., that Cando breached the contract by terminating it and hiring the sub-subcontractor directly, and that Zagros was entitled to damages for unpaid work.

However, the court found that Zagros failed to prove the timeliness of its lien claim, and thus the lien was declared expired and vacated.

The accused, N.D.H., was charged with multiple sexual offences against a child.

The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s evidence, which was found to be inconsistent and unclear on significant points.

The defence established a motive to fabricate based on the complainant’s upset over having her electronic devices taken away.

The court found the accused’s evidence credible and acquitted him, holding that the Crown had not proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court considered costs following a 13-day trial in which the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed in its entirety.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, relying on their complete success and the plaintiff’s rejection of settlement offers.

The court reviewed the scale and quantum of costs, the parties’ conduct, and the complexity and importance of the case.

Ultimately, the court awarded the defendants $155,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, less a prior set-off, declining to order substantial indemnity or to affect property held in trust in related proceedings.