SCJ 2025

The court considered a failed real estate transaction for a commercial property, where the plaintiff sought rescission and return of a $50,000 deposit after discovering outstanding work orders for a fuel tank.

The defendants counterclaimed for forfeiture of the deposit and damages.

The court found that the defendants repudiated the agreement, the plaintiff accepted the repudiation, and the defendants were unjustly enriched by retaining the deposit.

The court ordered the return of the deposit and dismissed all other claims.

The defendants moved to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff in a mortgage dispute involving the sale of a property and alleged construction deficiencies.

The court considered whether to release funds from the sale, vacate a writ of execution, set aside the default judgment, consolidate proceedings, and set a timetable for summary judgment.

Applying the established five-factor test, the court found the motion to set aside the default judgment was not brought promptly, lacked a plausible explanation for the default, and that the balance of prejudice and the integrity of the administration of justice weighed against granting the relief.

The motion was dismissed, but the court ordered the release of certain funds and vacated the writ of execution on consent.

No costs were awarded to either party.

This decision concerns the interpretation of a “Material Adverse Change” (MAC) clause in a governance agreement between Simpson Oil Limited (SOL) and Parkland Corporation.

The court found that the departures of Parkland’s CFO and a majority of its senior management constituted a MAC under the agreement, thereby lifting restrictions on SOL’s voting and acquisition rights.

The decision turns on whether certain events listed in the MAC definition are mandatory triggers or merely illustrative, and the court concludes they are mandatory.

The court sentenced Jeremy Johnson for possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and simple possession of cocaine, following a jury verdict.

The decision reviews the facts, the offender’s background, the positions of Crown and defence, and the applicable case law, including the Supreme Court’s guidance in R. v. Parranto.

The court found significant aggravating factors, including the large quantity of fentanyl, and imposed a global sentence of 11 years and six months, with credits for pre-sentence custody and time spent on house arrest (Downes credit), resulting in a net sentence of 11 years’ incarceration.

Ancillary orders included a weapons prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture of seized items.

This costs decision follows a lengthy family law trial between Nathan Zane Nugent and Melanie Rebecca Nugent, addressing retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, property division, and related issues.

The court found the wife was entirely successful and awarded her $200,000 in costs, citing the husband’s repeated non-compliance with court orders, failure to provide disclosure, and unreasonable conduct throughout the proceedings.

The court reviewed the legislative and case law framework for costs, the role of offers to settle, and the proportionality and reasonableness of the costs sought.

The order is enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

This costs endorsement follows the granting of interlocutory relief to Parkland Corporation in a lease dispute.

The court awards partial indemnity costs to Parkland, finding the respondents' conduct did not rise to the level warranting substantial indemnity.

The decision discusses the principles governing costs, including proportionality, misconduct, and the timing of costs awards.

The court considered whether a condominium unit owned by the late Qasem Mahmud was held in trust for the Arabic and Islamic Education Foundation.

The applicant, as estate trustee, sought a declaration that neither an express trust nor a purchase money resulting trust existed in favour of the Foundation.

The court found that the requirements for an express trust were not met, as Mr. Mahmud did not own the property when the declaration of trust was signed and the necessary formalities were lacking.

The court also found that the Foundation did not contribute to the purchase price at the time of acquisition, so no purchase money resulting trust arose.

The application was allowed, and the Foundation was found to have no beneficial interest in the property.

The decision concerns a motion by the Estate Trustee, Chris Paju, to strike all or part of the respondent Jennifer Lindstrom’s objections to the Estate Accounts for the period March 16, 2022 to January 10, 2024.

The court found that many of Ms. Lindstrom’s objections were not responsive to the Second Accounts, repeated issues already addressed, or violated previous court orders.

The court ordered that non-compliant and irrelevant portions of Ms. Lindstrom’s objections be struck, and directed the moving party to file redacted objections.

Costs were awarded to the applicant, with directions for written submissions.

The decision addresses a motion by the plaintiff to amend her statement of claim in a real estate dispute.

The plaintiff sought to add claims related to a "Development Pause" and "Walk Away Offers" in a failed home purchase.

The court found the Development Pause amendments were statute-barred and dismissed them, but allowed amendments regarding the Walk Away Offers, as they were timely and not prima facie unmeritorious.

The court also ordered further document disclosure and permitted further discovery, deferring a decision on certain refusals.

The plaintiff, Novastar Corporation Inc., sought summary judgment against the defendants, Michael and Danielle Amoroso, for repayment of a $250,000 loan evidenced by a demand promissory note.

The defendants argued the claim was statute-barred and Danielle raised a non est factum defence.

The court found that a clear and unequivocal demand for payment was not made until May 2023, and the action was commenced within the limitation period.

Danielle’s non est factum defence failed as she did not exercise reasonable care in signing the note.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

This direction addresses the admissibility and use of a third video clip in a criminal trial involving Daniel Keefe.

The court considers the relevance and potential prejudice of the video, which depicts an attack by Aiden Cunningham on a third party, and provides guidance on how the jury should be instructed if the attacker is not identified in evidence.

This decision concerns an application by Dr. Kelly Diane Riedel regarding the validity and administration of the Dmyant Sangha Family Trust and the Sangha Property Trust.

Dr. Riedel alleges that the trusts are shams, created to defeat her family law entitlements, and seeks various forms of relief including the production of legal records and the conversion of the application to an action.

The court addresses the legal standards for sham trusts, the relevance of disputed facts, and the entitlement to privileged documents.

The application to convert to an action is dismissed, and the court sets out a process for determining threshold questions regarding the validity of the trusts.

The court considered whether to dismiss the application against Ontario under rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant, Ramlall Hemchand, alleged that Ontario failed to act on complaints regarding his rental premises and the conduct of his landlords.

The court found the application against Ontario to be frivolous and vexatious, noting that the pleadings did not identify any duty owed or breached by Ontario, nor did they seek any relief against Ontario.

The application was dismissed.

This decision addresses cross-applications between two groups of real estate investors, led by David Civiero and Grant Alexander Hood, regarding the winding up or buy-sell/shotgun disposition of their jointly held corporations.

The court grants leave to add parties, converts the applications to actions, and orders transfer and consolidation with a related Toronto action, finding that the complexity and credibility issues require a full trial.

The applicants sought to set aside an arbitral award under section 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, and moved for leave to introduce fresh evidence.

The court found that the fresh evidence was not relevant to the issues before the arbitrator and would not have affected the outcome.

The application was dismissed as an impermissible appeal of the merits of the arbitration, as the parties had excluded any right of appeal in their agreement.

The court confirmed that section 46 provides only limited grounds for setting aside an award and is not a substitute for an appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The court considered a motion by Roberto Aguiar for an order declaring that a settlement was reached with Viele Professional Corporation and Frances M. Viele regarding an assessment of legal accounts.

The court found that a binding settlement was reached on or about November 19, 2024, for $15,000 and a tailored release, and that the settlement was thwarted by Ms. Viele’s insistence on the wording of the release.

The motion was granted, and the parties were directed to finalize the release and complete the settlement.

The Applicant, Pierrette Donaghy, brought a motion seeking findings of breach and various enforcement and preservation remedies against the Respondent, Michael Donaghy, in a long-running family law proceeding.

The Court found the Respondent in breach of multiple court orders regarding disclosure and support, granted preservation orders over his assets, and set deadlines for compliance, including the production of business valuation and income determination reports.

The Court declined to increase the daily penalty for non-compliance but allowed the Applicant to seek to strike the Respondent’s pleadings if he failed to comply by the set date.

Costs were awarded to the Applicant.

La décision porte sur la détermination de la peine pour l’importation de 215 kg de cocaïne de haute pureté par Alain Paré.

Après avoir examiné les faits aggravants et atténuants, la jurisprudence pertinente et les objectifs de la peine, la Cour impose une peine de 16 ans d’emprisonnement, en plus du temps déjà purgé, ainsi que diverses ordonnances accessoires.

La décision analyse en détail la gravité de l’infraction et la nécessité de dénonciation et de dissuasion.

This costs endorsement follows a motion for summary judgment in a failed real estate transaction.

The plaintiff was awarded judgment and sought substantial indemnity costs based on an unaccepted offer to settle and alleged conduct by the defendant’s counsel.

The court found the offer to settle was not more favourable than the judgment and that the defendant’s conduct did not justify elevated costs.

The plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs of $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.