SCJ 2025

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation and quantum of costs following a contested application to pass accounts in the insolvent estate of Christina Georgiou Psoma.

The court reviews the parties’ positions, the applicable legal principles, and the conduct of the litigation, ultimately awarding the applicant, Steve Georgiou, costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $23,000, payable by the objectors, Panayiotios Georgiou and Zevoulla Georgiou, jointly and severally.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of the modern approach to costs in estate litigation, the impact of settlement offers, and the role of proportionality and party conduct in determining costs.

The court allowed the Crown's appeal from an acquittal on an "over 80" charge under s. 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, finding that the trial judge erred in law by failing to properly apply the objective element of the statutory defence in s. 320.14(5).

The trial judge had accepted the respondent's subjective belief that he would not be required to provide a breath sample after a car accident, but did not adequately consider whether that belief was objectively reasonable in the circumstances.

The matter was remitted for a new trial.

The court also dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal regarding the trial judge's findings on state agency and Charter s. 24(2).

The court considered whether to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

After reviewing the statement of claim and written submissions, the court found that the claim pleaded an arguable and discernable cause of action and should not be dismissed at this stage.

The court emphasized the robust gatekeeping function of Rule 2.1, but found that the statement of claim was not so devoid of merit as to warrant summary dismissal.

Costs were reserved to the trial judge.

The applicant, M.D., sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Director of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) to lay criminal charges against two police officers following an incident in which M.D. alleged sexual assault during a search at a hospital.

The court considered whether the SIU Director had a duty to lay charges, whether an alternative remedy was available, and whether the merits of the Director’s decision justified mandamus.

The court found no duty owed to the applicant to form reasonable and probable grounds, held that the private prosecution process under section 504 of the Criminal Code was an adequate alternative remedy, and found no evidence of bias or improper motive in the Director’s decision.

The application for mandamus was dismissed.

The court considered whether the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Kimera Fullwood was in possession of a prohibited firearm found in a residence during a drug trafficking investigation.

The court reviewed the law on circumstantial evidence and possession, ultimately finding that the evidence was reasonably capable of supporting an alternative inference that another individual, Hasnan Sandhu, brought the firearm into the residence without Fullwood’s knowledge.

Fullwood was acquitted on the firearm charges.

The court considered whether Seedjan Sulaiman Khail, who stabbed his father to death, was not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder.

The only issue in dispute was whether the accused’s mental disorder rendered him incapable of knowing that his actions were wrong.

After reviewing the psychiatric evidence and the accused’s history, the court found that while Mr. Sulaiman Khail suffered from a mental disorder at the time of the offence, he did not lack the capacity to know that his actions were wrong according to the ordinary moral standards of society.

The court found him guilty of second-degree murder.

The applicant, Charles Frederick Armstrong, challenged the constitutionality of the Township of Russell’s Sign By-Law, which restricted the display of municipal election signs.

The court found that the by-law violated Armstrong’s freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the violation was not justified under section 1.

The court also found that the Township was unjustly enriched by requiring Armstrong to pay $450 for the return of his signs, which had been removed under the unconstitutional by-law.

The court assessed damages for the applicant, Vineet Khanna, arising from the respondents' breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for real property.

The court rejected claims for rescission and damages in lieu of specific performance, finding the property was not unique and that the applicant failed to prove fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court awarded damages based on the difference between the purchase price and the market value at the date of breach, as well as for extension fees, temporary accommodation, and moving/storage expenses, but denied "equitable interest" and limited some claims due to insufficient evidence.

The court considered the Crown's application to admit hearsay statements made by the deceased, Carl Delphin, to his girlfriend, Ruth Anne Villeneuve, in a double homicide prosecution.

The Crown sought to admit these statements as evidence of Delphin’s intention to act as “backup” for Nico Soubliere, who was meeting with the accused.

The court reviewed the state of mind exception and the principled exception to the hearsay rule, ultimately finding that the statements were not sufficiently reliable and were made under circumstances of suspicion.

The application to admit the statements was denied.

The decision concerns a defence motion to admit hearsay statements made by the deceased, Carl Delphin and Nico Soubliere, to James Brooks, suggesting an intention to rob another drug dealer for Percocets.

The court found the statements admissible under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, holding that the statements were substantively reliable and relevant to the issue of the identity of the shooter.

The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect, and that the circumstances in which the statements were made supported their reliability.

The plaintiff, Kathleen MacNeill, sought damages for injuries allegedly sustained after ingesting a deliming agent in coffee served at a McDonald’s drive-thru.

The court found that while the incident was unsettling, the evidence did not establish that the plaintiff suffered any serious or permanent injury causally related to the incident.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s claims for general, income, and future care damages, awarding only $5,000 for temporary pain and inconvenience.

The decision turned on findings of credibility, causation, and the weight of expert and lay evidence.

The plaintiff, Ari Lesser, brought a motion under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order requiring third party Cogeco Connexion Inc. to disclose basic subscriber information associated with a specific IP address.

The court distinguished between Norwich orders and Rule 30.10 orders, finding that as an Associate Judge, it could not grant equitable relief but could grant the requested order under Rule 30.10.

The court found the information sought was relevant and necessary, and that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case against the unknown defendants.

The motion was granted.

The decision concerns the prosecution of Rasim Kaba and Hassan Talebi for importing and possessing opium for the purpose of trafficking, and conspiracy to commit those offences.

The court reviews the evidence, including the defendants' backgrounds, their relationship, the importation process, intercepted communications, and the police investigation.

The court finds both defendants' explanations implausible and concludes that the only reasonable inference is that both knew of the opium and conspired to import and traffic it.

Both are found guilty on all counts.

The court dismissed a proposed class action for delay under section 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The plaintiff failed to advance the proceeding for over six years after being ordered to deliver amended materials.

The court found that the plaintiff had not taken any steps to advance the case, failed to comply with court-ordered timetables, and did not provide evidence to justify an adjournment.

The dismissal does not prejudice putative class members, as they may commence a new proceeding on the same grounds.

The court considered whether, at a case conference, an associate judge has jurisdiction to determine if the plaintiff may examine a third party in the main action under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff sought to examine Andrew Clark, a third party, but the associate judge found that such a determination would constitute interlocutory relief, which is beyond the jurisdiction of an associate judge at a case conference.

The request was denied, and the plaintiff was directed to bring a motion if it wished to pursue the matter.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The statement of claim failed to disclose any intelligible or actionable claim, and the plaintiffs did not provide submissions when invited.

The court granted leave to amend within 60 days and awarded no costs.

This endorsement addresses a case conference during an ongoing trial, where both parties sought to admit further evidence.

The court set out a process for the parties to attempt consent on the admission of new documents, established a timetable for the exchange of motion materials, and clarified that all communications should be between counsel of record or self-represented parties.

The court also outlined procedures for cross-examination on affidavits and provided for further case management as needed.

This decision addresses the voluntariness of a police statement by the accused, Gregory Beasley, in a double homicide prosecution.

The court considered whether the police's provision of alcohol to the accused during a custodial interview rendered the statement involuntary or created oppressive circumstances.

After reviewing the evidence and legal principles, the court found that the statement was voluntary and admissible, as the accused had an operating mind, was not subject to threats or inducements, and the provision of alcohol did not amount to oppression or police trickery under the law.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of the action by Gloria Rajkumar and the family trust against Roger Rajkumar, and the granting of the counterclaim by Rita Rajkumar against Gloria and the Simac companies.

The court awards costs to Roger and Rita, applying the principles of partial and substantial indemnity, and addresses the reasonableness of the amounts claimed, the effect of a Rule 49 offer, and the connection between the main action and the counterclaim.