SCJ 2025

This costs endorsement addresses the outcome of an interlocutory injunction motion brought by The Matter Corporation against Southside Construction Management Limited and others.

The court reviews the partial success of the plaintiff, the divided success of the parties, and the appropriate approach to costs in the context of interim injunctions.

The court ultimately fixes the plaintiff’s partial indemnity costs at $81,074.85, to be payable in the cause, after deducting amounts for unsuccessful relief and for work that will be used in discovery.

The court considered whether Ms. Dubuisson, previously found incapable of managing her property, could move to substitute her guardian under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.

The court found that while she had standing to bring the motion, she could not do so without a litigation guardian due to her status as a person under disability.

The motion was dismissed, with the court emphasizing the importance of procedural protections for individuals found incapable and the statutory respect for autonomy.

The applicant, 2811230 Ontario Limited, sought an order deleting the registration of an Order to Comply (OTC) from title to its property in Niagara Falls, arguing that the OTC prevented sale or refinancing.

The City opposed, maintaining the OTC was properly registered to notify the public of unpermitted construction.

The court denied the applicant’s request for an adjournment and ultimately dismissed the application, finding that the OTC remained valid and that its registration served the public interest in consumer protection and safety.

The court held that the applicant’s objective was to conceal the OTC from prospective buyers or mortgagees, contrary to the Act’s purpose.

This decision addresses an interim parenting and school placement dispute following a parent's unilateral relocation with children in breach of a separation agreement.

The court finds the mother acted unilaterally and without candor, and orders the children to remain at their original school, with a detailed interim parenting schedule and joint decision-making (with final authority to the father if consensus cannot be reached).

The decision emphasizes the primacy of the children's best interests, the importance of stability, and the need for full disclosure and procedural fairness in family law proceedings.

The decision addresses procedural issues arising at the start of a wrongful dismissal trial under the simplified procedure.

The plaintiff sought relief regarding the admissibility of certain documents produced late by the defendant and guidance on trial management.

The court held that a redacted settlement letter could be admitted due to a compelling public interest, but excluded other late-produced documents for lack of explanation.

The court also clarified the treatment of discovery transcripts and trial affidavits, and allowed an amendment to the Statement of Claim on consent.

The court considered a motion under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous and vexatious.

The statement of claim was found to be very poorly pleaded and would require amendment to allow a response.

The court ordered that the plaintiff be given notice and an opportunity to make submissions as to why the claim should not be dismissed, and stayed the action pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The court considered a motion under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous or vexatious.

The registrar was directed to give notice to the plaintiff that the court is considering dismissal, to stay the plaintiff’s actions pending the outcome of the written hearing, and to limit further filings to the plaintiff’s written submissions.

The endorsement sets out procedural steps for both the registrar and the parties.

This costs endorsement follows the court’s decision on an application regarding the enforcement of an agreed procedure in a Share Purchase Agreement between CLEAResult Canada Inc. and the respondents.

The court granted the application, allowing the appointed Independent Auditor to proceed with the expert adjudication of the Reverse Earn-Out Calculation.

The parties had agreed that the wholly successful party would be paid $60,000 in costs.

However, due to a lack of clarity in the applicants’ position regarding the auditor’s mandate, the court reduced the costs award to $45,000, to be paid by the respondents.

The court considered whether police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Hassan Ozeir for drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court found that police lacked such grounds, as their observations of Ozeir were consistent with benign behaviour and did not match the pattern of drug trafficking described by tipsters or observed in relation to his brother, Yousef Ozeir.

The court concluded that the arrest and subsequent search violated sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The evidence was excluded under section 24(2) due to the seriousness of the Charter breach and misleading police testimony.

The accused, Jason Albert Lowe, was charged with sexual assault against M.D. following an incident on March 8-9, 2022.

The trial turned on the credibility and reliability of the complainant, who gave inconsistent statements regarding consent, the use of a condom, and other details.

The court found that the inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence raised a reasonable doubt and acquitted Mr. Lowe.

The court found Tekele Ogbamichael guilty of sexual assault in four counts and guilty of the lesser included offence of assault on one count, following a series of incidents on public transit in the Greater Toronto Area.

The decision details the evidence of each complainant, the police investigation, and the application of cross-count similar fact evidence to establish identity.

The court found the similarities between the incidents—modus operandi, description, and circumstances—were so striking as to make coincidence highly improbable.

The judge also addressed the frailties of eyewitness identification and the use of circumstantial evidence, ultimately concluding that the Crown had proven identity and the elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court considered a motion for summary judgment in a commercial dispute where the plaintiff, Profit Professionals Inc., sought damages for breach of contract and on a quantum meruit basis.

The defendant, Tiger Drylac Canada Inc., argued that the plaintiff's claims were barred by a two-year limitation period.

The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the discoverability of the plaintiff's loss for the breach of contract claim, but granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's quantum meruit claim as statute-barred.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, Nathramdas and Premwattie Chateramdas, declaring that the transfer of their property and a subsequent mortgage were fraudulent instruments under the Land Titles Act.

The court found that Melissa Sanasie fraudulently transferred title to herself and registered a mortgage in favour of RiverRock Mortgage Investment Corporation, using the proceeds for her own benefit.

The court ordered rectification of title, deletion of the mortgage, and awarded punitive damages against Melissa for her egregious conduct, including the production of falsified documents and impersonation of counsel.

The claim against RiverRock was not dismissed, and the claim against Ziba Heydarian will proceed separately.

The applicant sought a retroactive adjustment of child support, payment of arrears, and changes to section 7 expenses and life insurance coverage.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the respondent’s increased income and determined that retroactive child support should be paid from April 1, 2018, based on the Child Support Guidelines.

The court also addressed the duration of child support, payment of arrears, section 7 expenses, and life insurance benefits, and provided directions for costs.

The court sentenced Jason Curnew for sexual assault against a contract employee, Ms. AS, whom he supervised.

The decision details the circumstances of the offence, the offender’s background, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the application of sentencing principles, including the totality principle.

The court imposed a five-year consecutive penitentiary sentence, with mandatory ancillary orders, after considering the impact on the victim, the abuse of authority, and the offender’s prior convictions.

The court dismissed an anti-SLAPP motion brought by Zhou Chen, a former employee of Diverse Transportation, who had sent disparaging messages to Diverse’s customers linking payment demands to allegations of misconduct.

The court found that Chen’s communications were not genuinely in the public interest but were instead a façade for a private employment dispute and debt collection.

The decision clarifies the threshold for public interest under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act and affirms that anti-SLAPP protections do not extend to private disputes disguised as matters of public concern.

The court considered costs following a family law trial between R.M. (the father) and C.D. (the mother).

Both parties sought costs, each claiming greater success at trial.

The court found that success was divided: the father was more successful on parenting issues, while the mother was more successful on financial issues.

The court reviewed the relevant principles and rules governing costs, including the impact of offers to settle and allegations of bad faith.

Ultimately, the court found no party acted in bad faith and that neither party was more successful overall.

As a result, no costs were awarded.

The appellant, SI, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision upholding Dr. Jeanetta Viljoen’s finding that SI was incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic drugs.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly identified and applied the statutory test for capacity under the Health Care Consent Act.

The court held that corroborative evidence, as required by the Evidence Act, was present, including the notes and observations of Dr. Banks and other medical history.

The court confirmed that a second clinical opinion is not required for corroboration and that the Board’s findings were supported by the evidence.

The court sentenced Patrick Boyd Park for ten serious criminal offences, including sexual assault, human trafficking, and related crimes against four victims.

The decision details the circumstances of the offences, the offender’s background, the parties’ sentencing positions, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court imposed a global sentence of 2,155 days (about 5.9 years), reduced for strict bail and harsh pretrial custody conditions, with all sentences to run concurrently.

The plaintiff, Carrie Wei, moved for summary judgment against the defendants (except Zhi Qiang Wang) for $700,000 plus 30% interest, and for dismissal of the counterclaim.

The court found that the loan agreement was clear, that the defendants failed to provide any credible defence or evidence, and that the corporate veil should be pierced due to fraudulent conduct.

The counterclaim for defamation was dismissed for lack of evidence.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiff, including costs.