SCJ 2025

The respondent mother sought an interim restraining order under the Family Law Act and Children’s Law Reform Act to prevent the applicant father from contacting her and their three children.

The court found no evidentiary basis for such an order, noting that the father’s conduct—attending the children’s activities and attempting contact—did not amount to harassment or endangerment.

The court emphasized the importance of both parents’ involvement in the children’s lives and encouraged communication and counseling, ultimately dismissing the motion for a restraining order.

The court considered whether the accused, Malachi Venus-Seaforth, had standing to bring a section 8 Charter application to exclude evidence obtained during a search of an apartment in Thunder Bay.

The court reviewed the facts, including the nature of the accused’s presence at the apartment, the degree of control exercised, and the legal principles governing reasonable expectation of privacy.

The court concluded that the accused was, at best, a transient occupant with minimal connection to the apartment and did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The application for standing was dismissed.

This appeal concerns the sufficiency of reasons provided by a trial judge in a conviction for assault causing bodily harm.

The appellant, Sarah Bannon, argued that the trial judge failed to address or analyze the defence of self-defence, which was the central issue at trial.

The Superior Court found that the trial judge’s reasons did not mention self-defence or the relevant legal framework, preventing meaningful appellate review.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

This costs decision follows the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim after a two-day trial under the simplified procedure.

The defendant, having been entirely successful, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on an offer to settle.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the offer did not justify a higher scale.

Considering the simplicity, short duration, and small amount at issue, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $15,000 plus HST and disbursements, for a total of $19,197, payable within 90 days.

The applicant, Deanna McKinlay, sought a declaration that a document she wrote and the deceased signed was a valid testamentary instrument for the estate of Virginia Beecroft.

In the alternative, she sought a declaration that the deceased’s 2020 Will and Codicil should govern.

The court found the proffered document was not a valid will, as it was not a fixed and final expression of the deceased’s testamentary intentions, and ordered the estate to be administered in accordance with the 2020 Will and Codicil.

The appellant, Loveneet Kaur, appealed her conviction for impaired operation and operation with blood-alcohol concentration over 80, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence.

The court reviewed the trial judge’s findings, including the rejection of the appellant’s evidence and the application of the statutory and common law tests for care and control.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court finding no error in the trial judge’s analysis or application of the law.

This decision follows an uncontested trial regarding the residency, decision-making, and parenting time for two children wrongfully removed from Ontario to Lebanon by the respondent, Luna Mounir Andraos.

The court confirms final orders for the children to reside with the applicant, Amin Joseph Barakat, who is granted sole decision-making responsibility, and for the respondent to have only supervised parenting time.

The court also addresses the respondent’s ongoing defiance of previous orders and awards costs for the uncontested trial.

The plaintiff, Xuan Wu, underwent a Brazilian Butt Lift at the Toronto Cosmetic Surgery Institute and subsequently developed a significant infection.

She sued Dr. Martin Jugenburg and his clinic, alleging that she did not provide informed consent because she was not made aware of the risk of infection.

The court found that informed consent was properly obtained through a series of consultations and written materials, and that the process met the legal standard.

The action was dismissed.

This costs endorsement addresses the Applicant's request for full indemnity costs following a successful urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court reviews the relevant Family Law Rules regarding offers to settle and the factors for awarding costs, including the impact of the Respondent's mental health on her ability to respond to settlement offers.

Ultimately, the court awards partial indemnity costs, deferring payment to be set off against equalization or paid from the Respondent’s share of the matrimonial home.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary parenting, child and spousal support, equalization, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, life insurance, and costs.

The court found the respondent's behaviour troubling, imputed income for child support, granted arrears and retroactive support, and ordered exclusive possession of the home and life insurance.

The applicant was also granted the right to seek spousal support in the future, and the respondent was ordered to pay an equalization amount.

Payment of certain amounts was deferred until the sale of the home.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a family law trial.

The applicant, Rona Elizabeth Scott, sought full recovery of her legal costs on the basis that the respondent, Thomas Ryan Scott, acted in bad faith by advancing a baseless claim that the applicant was secretly an internet porn star, which the court found to be "patently ridiculous." The court found that the applicant was successful on virtually every issue, and that the respondent's conduct met the definition of bad faith, warranting a full recovery of costs.

Costs were fixed at $57,800, payable by the respondent forthwith.

This decision concerns the costs of a motion regarding a construction lien.

The Honsbergers sought to discharge or reduce a lien registered by Homes by Hendriks Inc. The court previously reduced the lien but did not vacate it.

The parties could not agree on costs, so submissions were made.

The court awarded the Honsbergers $51,313.32 in costs, finding their offer to settle was reasonable and that their costs were not disproportionate.

The court declined to order costs against the principal of the plaintiff personally.

The court sentenced Samantha Arezo Faryadpoor for her role in a violent home invasion and robbery.

While she did not physically assault the victim, she was an active participant in the planning and execution of the offence.

The court considered both aggravating and mitigating factors, including the seriousness of the offence, the lasting harm to the victim, Faryadpoor’s youth, her guilty plea, and her efforts at rehabilitation.

The court imposed a sentence of three years and ten months in jail, less credit for pre-sentence custody and time on house arrest, followed by two years’ probation with conditions.

The court considered whether the Last Will and Testament of Lynn Gloria Gamble, dated January 7, 2021, should be found valid and fully effective despite irregularities in its execution and the absence of the original.

The applicant, Robert Dunham, sought to have the will validated and a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee issued.

The respondent, Clarence Earl Gamble Jr., argued that the will was revoked and requested production of RBC safety deposit box access records.

The court found that the applicant had rebutted the presumption of revocation, validated the will under section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act, and deemed the Windsor Cancer Centre Foundation to be the intended beneficiary.

No costs were awarded.

The court considered a Charter application by Douvainn Dean, who was charged with multiple offences including possession of a handgun, drugs, and a stolen vehicle.

The court found that the police lacked both subjective and objective grounds for Dean's detention, resulting in a violation of his section 9 Charter rights.

The court also addressed the issue of racial profiling and found no evidence that race or racial stereotypes motivated the police.

Ultimately, the evidence seized as a result of the detention was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The applicant, Melissa Merritt, challenged the constitutionality of the absence of an appeal route following the dismissal of a directed verdict application and a subsequent mistrial.

She argued that section 7 of the Charter requires an appeal to the Court of Appeal in these circumstances and attacked sections 674 and 675 of the Criminal Code.

The court rejected the argument, holding that Parliament is entitled to restrict appeals to those provided by statute and that interlocutory appeals are not constitutionally required.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant later pled guilty to manslaughter.

The court considered an application by Basil Basnandan for a declaration that the purchasers, Michael A. Jones and Delphina Mervin Leblanc, were in breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for a commercial property, and for an order directing the broker, RE/MAX Hallmark Eyking Group Realty, to release the $200,000 deposit to him.

The purchasers failed to complete the transaction due to inability to secure financing.

The court found an anticipatory breach, held that Basnandan was entitled to terminate the agreement, and ordered the deposit released to him.

The court also addressed the commissioning of affidavit exhibits, the law of forfeiture and relief from forfeiture, and awarded partial indemnity costs to Basnandan.

The court granted the Charter application of Malamin Marong, excluding evidence of a loaded prohibited firearm and cocaine found during a vehicle search.

The court found that the police lacked grounds for the initial traffic stop and subsequent search under the Cannabis Control Act, and that the officer's evidence was unreliable and contradicted by other evidence.

The breaches of Charter sections 8 and 9 were serious, and the exclusion of the evidence was necessary to maintain the integrity of the justice system, despite the reliability and importance of the evidence to the Crown's case.