SCJ 2025

The defendant was charged with aggravated assault for stabbing the complainant four times during a physical altercation at a homeless shelter.

The Crown alleged the defendant initiated the confrontation and used excessive force.

The defendant claimed self-defence, asserting the complainant attacked him unprovoked and he stabbed in response to being pinned to the ground and punched repeatedly in the head.

The court found the defendant not guilty, determining that while the defendant initiated the confrontation by following the complainant, once the physical fight began, the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe force was being used against him, acted with the subjective purpose of self-protection, and the use of force was reasonable in the circumstances given the defendant's inability to escape and the ongoing threat posed by the larger, stronger complainant.

Justin Taillefer was charged with eleven counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and four firearm-related offences.

Police executed a search warrant at his apartment on January 26, 2023, and discovered approximately $3.2 million in drugs in a second bedroom, along with various other controlled substances throughout the apartment and a loaded handgun.

The accused admitted to possessing some drugs found in common areas but denied knowledge of the large quantity of drugs in the second bedroom or the firearm.

The trial judge found the accused guilty of eleven drug trafficking counts but acquitted him on all firearm charges.

The conviction was based on constructive possession, finding that the accused either had actual knowledge or was willfully blind to his roommate's drug trafficking operation in the second bedroom.

The accused was charged with sexual assault against a 17-year-old complainant.

The alleged offence occurred during a truck ride from Quebec to Ontario in November 2022.

The Crown alleged multiple instances of forced oral sex and digital penetration.

The accused claimed the complainant initiated and consented to all sexual activity.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as lacking credibility due to deliberate lies to police and inconsistencies between his police statement and trial testimony.

The court accepted the complainant's credible and coherent account of non-consensual sexual contact.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault, rejecting the defence that the complainant had initiated the sexual activity.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' Statement of Defence for failure to answer undertakings from discovery, and sought default judgment or alternatively summary judgment on loan claims.

The court granted default judgment against the individual defendant Moiz Noorani for three personal unsecured loans totaling US$219,000, but declined to grant judgment against the corporate defendants.

The court found that the individual defendant's three-and-a-half-year failure to answer undertakings, coupled with breach of court orders, justified striking the defence and entering default judgment.

However, the corporate defendants were not parties to the loan agreements and the court found insufficient basis to hold them liable on the materials presented.

The total judgment against the individual defendant was US$629,221.92, including principal and accrued interest calculated to the date of judgment.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the plaintiffs.

A private lending company brought claims against a law firm and associate lawyer for professional negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract arising from a mortgage transaction.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims.

The court found that while the defendants owed a narrow duty of care to the plaintiff based on their legal opinion letter, the plaintiff failed to provide expert evidence regarding the standard of care required of solicitors conducting mortgage transactions.

Additionally, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of damages.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against the defendants, finding no genuine issue requiring trial.

The applicant sought a declaration that she owned a narrow strip of land (approximately 7 feet by 41 feet) located behind the respondents' garage through adverse possession.

The applicant claimed to have adversely possessed the strip between 1998 and 2008, prior to the conversion of the property to Ontario's land titles system.

The court found that the applicant failed to establish the requisite elements of adverse possession, including actual possession, intent to exclude the true owners, and effective exclusion.

The court dismissed the application and granted the respondents' cross-application for an order requiring the applicant to remove her trailer and detritus from the strip and cease trespassing.

The applicant was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs of $10,000.

The Crown applied under section 752.1(1) of the Criminal Code for an order remanding the offender for an assessment by an expert for use as evidence in an application to have the offender declared a dangerous offender or long-term offender.

The offender had been convicted of two counts of sexual assault against his biological daughters.

The court found that the Crown met the low threshold of demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe the offender might be found to be a dangerous offender or long-term offender, based on the offender's extensive criminal record spanning over three decades, pattern of repetitive sexual behaviour, institutional infractions including sexual predatory behaviour, and expert assessments indicating high risk of reoffending.

The court granted the application and ordered the assessment.

The applicant brought a Charter application challenging his prosecution for possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking.

He argued that the prosecution should be stayed as it offended the rule against double jeopardy following his conviction on institutional disciplinary charges; that the search of his cell violated s. 8 of the Charter; that questioning by correctional officers violated s. 10(b) of the Charter; and that evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2).

The court dismissed all arguments, finding that s. 11(h) does not apply to inmate disciplinary proceedings; that the search was properly authorized; that no s. 10(b) violation occurred; and that evidence exclusion was not warranted.

The offender pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood and thereby causing the death of another person.

The collision occurred on April 18, 2023, when the offender, driving at over 110 km/h in a 50 km/h zone with an expired driver's licence and a blood alcohol level of 210-214 mg/100ml, struck a vehicle from behind, fatally injuring the victim.

The court imposed a four-year prison sentence, an eight-year driving prohibition, and a DNA order, balancing the serious aggravating circumstances against the offender's previously unblemished character and strong rehabilitative potential.

The applicant was charged with trafficking cocaine, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and firearm-related offences.

The applicant brought a section 8 Charter motion challenging the validity of search warrants for his residence and two vehicles, and alleging that a search of a storage locker was warrantless and unauthorized.

The Crown conceded that the storage locker search was warrantless.

The court found that the search warrants for the residence and vehicles were validly issued based on reasonable and probable grounds, but that the warrantless search of the storage locker violated section 8 of the Charter.

The court excluded the evidence obtained from the storage locker under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the seriousness of the breach and its impact on privacy rights outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

A complex family law trial involving equalization of net family property, child and spousal support, and fraudulent conveyance claims arising from the breakdown of a 17-year marriage.

The applicant wife sought equalization of property and support for three children.

The respondent husband, who had engaged in deceptive financial transactions including placing a mortgage on the matrimonial home without the wife's knowledge and selling it to a third party, was found to have fraudulently conveyed the property.

The court imputed income to the husband due to inadequate disclosure and awarded the wife an equalization payment, child support arrears, and section 7 expense contributions.

The court also addressed overlapping claims by multiple respondents and dismissed claims lacking evidentiary foundation.

Purchasers sought return of a $150,000 deposit on a failed real estate transaction for a property in Kitchener, Ontario.

The Agreement of Purchase and Sale was dated July 22, 2024, with a purchase price of $2,840,000 and closing date of August 26, 2024.

The sale did not close.

The purchasers raised two grounds for return of the deposit: (1) the vendor's spouse did not provide the required matrimonial consent under the Family Law Act, and (2) a writ of execution against the vendor was not removed from title.

The court found both grounds valid and ordered return of the deposit with interest and costs.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiff's claim for abuse of process, arguing that the prior decision in Leavens v. Schwartz (the "Shotgun Decision") had finally disposed of the matter.

The plaintiff sought to challenge a buy/sell transaction that had been enforced by the court, alleging that the defendants had engaged in a secret investment arrangement with third-party financiers without disclosure.

The court found that the claim constituted an abuse of process because the underlying subject matter was identical to the prior proceeding, the issues could have been raised before the prior judge, and the plaintiff was essentially seeking to undo a final court decision with which he was dissatisfied.

The court struck the claim without leave to amend.

The respondent brought a motion to strike the applicant's pleading for failure to comply with disclosure orders.

The motion was successful and the applicant's claim for an equalization payment was struck.

This endorsement addresses the costs award following the successful motion.

The respondent sought costs in the range of $80,000 to $105,000, while the applicant argued for no costs or only nominal costs.

The court found the applicant's behaviour unreasonable but not in bad faith.

The applicant failed to provide current financial disclosure to support claims of inability to pay.

The respondent had served a settlement offer on December 12, 2023, which the applicant failed to meet or exceed.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis prior to the offer date and full recovery thereafter.

This costs decision addresses the allocation of costs for a distribution motion concerning competing claims over preserved funds in a complex fraud and investment scheme case.

The Trial Parties, who succeeded at trial on fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment claims, sought to recover their judgment from preserved funds.

The Settling Parties, who had reached settlement agreements with the defendants before trial, sought equitable liens and constructive trusts over the same preserved funds.

The court awarded costs to the Trial Parties against the Settling Parties, finding that the Settling Parties had deliberately delayed enforcement of their settlements and improperly sought to benefit from the Trial Parties' litigation efforts without bearing the associated costs and burdens.

The plaintiff moved for default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action against her former employer.

The defendant's Statement of Defence had been struck in August 2022 due to the defendant's delaying tactics and misconduct.

The defendant appealed unsuccessfully and sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which was also denied.

The defendant subsequently attempted to file a factum in response to the default judgment motion.

The court initially granted default judgment in the amount of $170,415.42 plus costs and disbursements.

Upon learning that the defendant's materials had not been before the court, the judge temporarily vacated the endorsement to consider the defendant's request for leave to make submissions.

The court ultimately dismissed the defendant's request for leave and reinstated the default judgment, finding that permitting submissions would constitute an abuse of process given the defendant's extensive history of delay, misconduct, and unsuccessful appeals.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment based on the terms of a Separation Agreement dated November 24, 2023, which provided for spousal support of $800 monthly for three years, terminating on August 30, 2024.

The applicant opposed the motion, claiming the parties had orally agreed to extend the support obligation for a full year and that four months of additional payments constituted a variation of the agreement.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment, finding the applicant bound by the terms of the Agreement and that the additional payments were gratuitous.

The court awarded costs to the respondent.

A motor vehicle accident occurred on April 25, 2015, on Scenic Road in Renfrew County involving two vehicles traveling in opposite directions, resulting in serious injury to a passenger.

Damages were resolved prior to trial.

The sole issue at trial was whether the driver of the oncoming vehicle (Prince) bore any liability for the accident.

The defendant driver (Vandenheuvel) admitted to crossing the centre line.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish any liability against Prince, dismissing the action against him.

The court found that Prince was driving in his own lane at a reasonable speed and took appropriate evasive action upon discovering the oncoming vehicle.

A pre-trial motion concerning the admissibility and use of will-say statements prepared by counsel for the applicant's witnesses.

The respondent sought an order permitting cross-examination of the witnesses on their will-says, or alternatively, requiring the statements to be translated and signed by the witnesses, or permitting cross-examination of the applicant on the preparation of the statements.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the will-say statements were provided in compliance with the undertakings given, were sufficiently detailed and meaningful, and that the respondent was not prejudiced by their late service.

The court clarified the proper use of will-say statements as disclosure tools rather than evidence, and protected communications between the applicant and her counsel regarding the preparation of the statements under solicitor-client privilege.