SCJ 2025

The court considered whether to instruct the jury on the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent in a sexual assault trial.

The defence requested the instruction, but the Crown opposed.

After reviewing the evidence and relevant case law, the court found that the air of reality test was not met and declined to instruct the jury on this defence.

The decision discusses the legal standards for the air of reality test, the reasonable steps requirement, and the dangers of impermissible "twin myth" reasoning.

The court considered whether the Morris Guy Jones Family Trust was a sham, whether it was void for lack of certainty of subject-matter, and whether the respondent breached her duties as trustee.

The court found the trust was not a sham, was valid, and that the respondent breached the trust by transferring trust assets to a joint account.

The respondent was removed as trustee and the applicant was appointed in her place.

The respondent was ordered to account, restore trust assets, and disgorge any profits.

The court found Dylan Sherief not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for the second-degree murder of Nicola Maiorano.

The decision reviews the legal test for criminal responsibility, the psychiatric evidence, and the facts of the case, concluding that Mr. Sherief’s schizoaffective disorder rendered him incapable of assessing the moral wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the offence.

The court ordered that Mr. Sherief be remanded to the Ontario Review Board for disposition.

This decision concerns the fixing of costs following a successful summary judgment motion by Marian Massaar against her daughter Lauren Moneck and son-in-law Anthony Moneck.

The court found that Anthony’s unreasonable conduct and failure to provide evidence that a loan was a gift justified substantial and full indemnity costs to Marian and Lauren, respectively.

The court reviewed the relevant legal principles and awarded costs to Marian ($58,885) and Lauren ($43,000), both fixed and inclusive.

The decision addresses claims for dependant’s support under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act by Elena Nikitina (alleged common-law spouse) and Rosa Maria Huynh (adult child) against the estate of Cong Hoanh Huynh.

The court found that Ms. Nikitina was not a common-law spouse and thus not entitled to support, but that Rosa was a dependant and entitled to a lump-sum support payment.

The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal and factual requirements for establishing cohabitation and dependency, and the quantum and duration of support for adult children.

The applicant, Mohammed Mazbah Uddin Bhuiyan, sought a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) after the respondent, Marissa Gonzales, refused to close a real estate transaction due to insufficient funds to discharge existing mortgages.

The court found that the applicant did not meet the low threshold for a CPL, as the unique features cited related to location rather than the property itself, and the rights of the mortgagee (MCC Mortgage Holdings Inc.)—which had already obtained judgment and a writ of possession—outweighed those of the applicant.

The motion for a CPL was dismissed.

On a mortgage enforcement motion, the moving party sought leave to amend her defence and counterclaim to add multiple proposed defendants by counterclaim, validate service, convert the action from foreclosure to sale, and obtain consolidation with a separate related action.

The court held there was no non-compensable prejudice and that the proposed joinder satisfied the Rules of Civil Procedure because the pleaded facts alleged an interconnected series of transactions, common factual issues, uncertainty about liability, and a strong interest in avoiding inconsistent findings.

The court further held that the proposed unlawful act conspiracy pleading was legally sufficient at the pleadings stage and need not prove the merits on the motion.

Leave to amend, conversion to a sale action, and validation of service were granted; consolidation was left unnecessary in light of the expected discontinuance of the separate action.

The plaintiffs, Lloyd Newton and the Estate of Donna Marion, brought an action against the Anishinabek Police Services and related defendants for damages arising from criminal charges laid against them, which were later withdrawn after restitution.

The claims included negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, and a variety of other torts.

The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The judge held that most claims were not actionable by the plaintiffs, and that the criminal proceedings did not terminate in the plaintiffs’ favour, precluding claims for malicious prosecution and negligent investigation.

On a pre-trial Charter application, the accused sought exclusion of police photographs of text messages taken from the complainant's phone with her consent.

The court held that the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in texts exchanged during the parties' romantic relationship, but not in texts exchanged after the relationship ended in which the complainant accused him of rape.

Photographing the relationship texts constituted at least a search, and the complainant's consent could not authorize a third-party waiver of the accused's s. 8 rights, making the warrantless search unreasonable.

Applying s. 24(2), the court declined to exclude the evidence because the police conduct was inadvertent, the privacy impact was minimal given the complainant could testify to the texts, and society's interest in adjudicating the serious charges on their merits was high.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming a physician's finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medication.

The court held that the applicable standard of review was palpable and overriding error for the challenged application of the governing legal test, and found that the Board properly distinguished disagreement with diagnosis from inability to appreciate the manifestations of a mental condition.

The court rejected submissions that the Board had engaged in a best interests analysis, had acted unfairly, or had overlooked concerns about side effects and fertility.

The appeal was dismissed and no costs were ordered.

The plaintiff, Maurizio Sprovieri, sought summary judgment for repayment of loans totaling $314,278.52, including interest, made to the defendant, James Christopher Demetriou.

The defendant did not dispute the existence or amount of the loans but argued the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff contended the claim was not discoverable until after June 8, 2019, due to the defendant’s representations that repayment depended on the outcome of a separate lawsuit.

The court found a conflict in the evidence regarding these representations and directed the issue to proceed to a mini trial.

The plaintiff, Community Trust Company, moved for summary judgment on a mortgage.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, granted judgment for the plaintiff, and ordered the defendants to deliver possession of the property.

The court also awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1067 (MTCC 1067) against 1388020 Ontario Corp. (BSA) for arrears of common expenses, rejecting BSA’s defence that it paid in cash under alleged side agreements.

The court found BSA’s evidence not credible, held that the statutory regime under the Condominium Act could not be contracted out of, and ordered vacant possession of the units to MTCC 1067 to permit sale under the lien.

The court also found BSA’s conduct to be oppressive and unfairly prejudicial to other unit owners.

The court granted judgment in favour of Madison Homes Cornell Rouge Limited for losses arising from the defendants' failure to close a real estate transaction.

The court dismissed the counterclaim and third-party claim, finding no actionable misrepresentation, duress, or unconscionability in the sales process.

The court also found no fiduciary duty owed by the third party, Edward Wong, to the defendants.

Damages were awarded for the difference between the contract price and resale price, plus related expenses.

This penalty decision follows a finding of contempt against Mark Mendl, former counsel to the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), for failing to comply with a court order to produce records and information regarding $3.7 million in union funds.

The court reviews the history of non-compliance, the steps taken by Mendl to eventually purge his contempt, and the aggravating and mitigating factors, including Mendl’s substance abuse and subsequent cooperation.

The court considers the purposes of civil contempt penalties, relevant case law, and the impact of Mendl’s suspension from legal practice.

Ultimately, the court imposes no further penalty, finding that Mendl’s incarceration, suspension, and agreement to pay costs suffice.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' "boomerang" motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claim.

The case involved a dispute over entitlement to shares and options following the termination of a consulting arrangement.

The court found that the contract was not a fixed-term contract and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to unvested shares or options after their engagement ended.

The court also addressed the application of res judicata, finding that the plaintiffs should have sought all relief in a single proceeding, but ultimately decided the matter on the merits of the contract.

This decision addresses a section 11(b) Charter application by three co-accused seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay in a large-scale drug importation and trafficking prosecution.

The court found the total delay (41 months) far exceeded the 30-month ceiling set by R. v. Jordan, and that the Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances or case complexity to justify the delay.

The court found the Crown’s late addition of a key witness, failure to promptly seek additional hearing dates, late disclosure, and strategic choices in evidentiary applications all contributed to the delay.

The court ordered a stay of proceedings for all accused.

Raha Mehralian brought a constitutional motion challenging section 29 of the Ontario Family Law Act and the judicial interpretation of section 4 of the federal Divorce Act under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

She argued that the exclusion of individuals subject to valid foreign divorces from seeking spousal support in Ontario constitutes discrimination based on marital status, sex, and religion.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding it to be an impermissible collateral attack on prior court rulings that recognized her Omani divorce and stayed her temporary support order.

The court also noted that the applicant's arguments went beyond her Notice of Constitutional Question and lacked a sufficient evidentiary basis.

The Monitor, FTI Consulting Canada Inc., brought a motion for an approval and vesting order in respect of the Purchased Assets and the sale thereof to Vault or an affiliate pursuant to the Rifco Asset Purchase Agreement, and for a stay extension order.

The Court approved the Rifco APA and the AVO, finding the process reasonable, the requirements of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act satisfied, and the transaction in the best interests of stakeholders.

The stay extension was also granted.

The plaintiffs moved for declarations that a law-firm partner had withdrawn from an interjurisdictional partnership, or alternatively for dissolution under the Partnerships Act, together with mandatory and injunctive relief over electronic devices, files, and trust-account records.

The motion arose from an alleged unilateral alteration of a class action settlement agreement that redirected class counsel fees and from broader allegations of self-dealing, lack of transparency, and withheld client files.

The court held the motion was, in substance, an attempt to obtain final relief akin to summary judgment before pleadings had closed, while material facts remained hotly disputed and related fee issues were simultaneously before the Alberta court.

Although the record raised concerns about possible fiduciary breaches, the court found a full trial was required and also found insufficient evidence of irreparable harm and no balance of convenience favouring effectively final injunctions.

The motion was dismissed.