SCJ 2025

This decision concerns the sale of a jointly owned residential property following the breakdown of a common law relationship.

The applicant, Cindy Lee Ann Cayen, sought urgent terms for the sale of the home, including an order requiring the respondent, Chad Parish, to vacate the property due to his ongoing non-compliance with previous court orders for sale.

The court found that the respondent had not appealed the orders, had obstructed the sale, and had not provided evidence of a viable plan to purchase the applicant’s interest.

The court ordered the respondent to vacate the property within 21 days and granted the applicant leave to obtain a writ of possession if necessary.

The distribution of sale proceeds was reserved.

The court considered a motion by the Applicants, estate trustees under a will, seeking to revoke a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee Without a Will granted to the Respondent, Denise Mayers, and for various injunctive and preservation orders.

The court found that Denise had fraudulently obtained the certificate despite knowing of the existence of a will, and granted most of the relief sought, including a Mareva injunction, a certificate of pending litigation over certain property, and a preservation order.

The court also awarded substantial indemnity costs against Denise due to her conduct.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of World Financial Solutions Inc. for possession and sale of a Toronto property under a collateral mortgage, dismissing the defences, counterclaim, and third party claims of 2573138 Ontario Ltd. and Marguerite Alfred.

The court found the mortgage was in default, rejected arguments of co-venturer status, conspiracy, and improper sale, and ordered a reference for accounting of sale proceeds.

The decision clarifies the application of summary judgment principles in mortgage enforcement and the limits of technical and equitable defences.

This decision follows a 13-day trial regarding the breakdown of a six-year marriage with no children, focusing on property division and damages arising from domestic violence.

The court addresses claims for constructive and resulting trusts, the characterization of family advances as loans or gifts, equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, and damages for family violence.

The court finds that the applicant is entitled to a 50% interest in both properties by way of constructive trust, that certain family advances were loans and others gifts, and awards damages for family violence.

A permanent restraining order is also granted.

This costs endorsement addresses entitlement and quantum of costs following a family law dispute regarding a change of school for the parties' child and a withdrawn claim for an interest in the proceeds of sale of a home.

The court apportions costs based on success on the various issues, the reasonableness of the parties' conduct, and the use of withdrawn claims as litigation leverage.

The result is a net costs award of $10,000 payable from the Applicant to the Respondent.

The applicant, Amanda Morden, sought a declaration that the respondent, Ingrid Niwranski, held certain investment accounts in joint ownership with the deceased, Giuseppe Lagana, subject to a resulting trust in favour of his estate.

The court considered whether the presumption of resulting trust was rebutted by evidence of Lagana’s intention to gift the right of survivorship to Niwranski.

After reviewing affidavits, cross-examinations, and the testimony of a financial planner, the court found sufficient corroborative evidence that Lagana intended Niwranski to receive the accounts upon his death.

The presumption of resulting trust was rebutted, and judgment was granted in favour of the respondent.

The applicant, Samer Bishay, sought an order under the Bank Act compelling the Bank of Montreal to reinstate his bank accounts, a trial on damages, and a Norwich Order for disclosure of information leading to the account closure.

The court found that s. 627.17 of the Bank Act only requires banks to open accounts under certain conditions, not to maintain them indefinitely, and that the common law right to terminate banking relationships on reasonable notice was not displaced.

The application was dismissed, including the request for a Norwich Order, as the applicant's claim was found to be speculative.

The court granted the Monitor's application to assign John Aquino into bankruptcy and continued the Mareva order against him.

The decision addresses the requirements for a bankruptcy order under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the discretion to dismiss or stay such an application, and the standards for continuing a Mareva injunction post-judgment.

The court found that John Aquino had committed an act of bankruptcy, was unable to pay his debts, and that there was no bona fide dispute with the Monitor.

The court also rejected arguments that the application was brought for a collateral purpose and found the continuation of the Mareva order appropriate.

The decision addresses a motion by Martin Z. Rosenbaum and his law corporation for the recusal of the case management judge, Lorne Brownstone, in a complex, multi-party trust account litigation arising from alleged misappropriation by Vanessa Ibe.

The court reviews the history of the litigation, the role of LAWPRO, and the management of case conferences.

The motion is dismissed, with the court finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and emphasizing the need for efficient case management in the interests of all parties, especially the victims.

The decision concerns a motion to set aside or vary a Mareva injunction, Norwich order, and preservation order obtained ex parte by the plaintiffs in a cryptocurrency mining business dispute.

The court finds a strong prima facie case of fraudulent misrepresentation against most defendants, upholds the Mareva and preservation orders (except as against Farhad Eshfagh), and addresses the standards for full and frank disclosure on ex parte motions, risk of dissipation, and balance of convenience.

The applicant, William Malamas, sought leave to commence an application for judicial review of decisions by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Malamas had not satisfied the requirements under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act for leave to proceed as a vexatious litigant.

The court held that the proposed proceeding was an abuse of process and lacked reasonable grounds, as it was intrinsically linked to prior litigation that led to the vexatious litigant order.

The court addresses the issue of forum shopping in civil proceedings, specifically the practice of commencing actions in judicial regions with no rational connection to the dispute.

The Royal Bank of Canada brought a collection action in Halton against defendants residing in Belleville.

The court finds that the plaintiff’s choice of venue was based solely on convenience to itself and its counsel, with no connection to Halton.

Relying on the Rules of Civil Procedure, case law, and the court’s inherent jurisdiction, the court directs the plaintiff to seek leave to transfer the action to the Central East Region, warning that forum shopping is no longer acceptable and places undue strain on judicial resources.

The Grey Sauble Conservation Authority (GSCA) sought a declaration that it is the proper owner of a parcel of land (PIN 37092-0350(R)) within the Hibou Conservation Area.

The respondent, Leroy David Dirckx, claimed title based on a chain of title beginning in 2013.

The court reviewed the historical chain of title, the registry and land titles systems, and allegations of a fraudulent scheme to create a false chain of title.

The court found that GSCA had established ownership by chain of title and, alternatively, by adverse possession.

The court granted a vesting order in favour of GSCA and extinguished any claim of Dirckx or others to the property.

The applicant, Matthew Pinkney, sought to exclude evidence obtained from a search of his vehicle following a Highway Traffic Act stop, arguing that his rights under sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Charter were infringed.

The court found that the police officer had reasonable grounds to search under the Cannabis Control Act, based on the smell of fresh cannabis and the observation of cannabis shake.

The court held that the delay in informing Mr. Pinkney of the true reason for his detention was justified by officer safety concerns.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The court interprets the Will of Yaacov Glickman, deceased, and determines that the gift of the residue of his estate to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is not void for uncertainty or any other reason.

The court finds that the Will provides for an outright gift to the University, not a formal trust or foundation, and that the "assumptions" in the Will are precatory rather than binding conditions.

The Applicant's concerns about ambiguity are addressed, and the court orders that the residue of the estate be distributed to the Hebrew University in accordance with the Will's guidelines.

The court held that Richard Turcotte was constructively dismissed by Grenville Management Inc. when he was unilaterally laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic, as the employment agreement did not permit such a layoff without his consent.

The court rejected the employer’s argument that pandemic-related regulations suspended the right to claim constructive dismissal at common law.

Turcotte was awarded 16 months’ pay in lieu of notice, with no punitive or moral damages, as the employer’s conduct, while problematic, did not meet the threshold for such awards.

The applicant, Jim’s Towing, sought judicial review of the Durham Regional Police Service’s decision to award a towing contract to another company, alleging corruption and bias in the process.

The court found that the decision was a commercial one, not a public law matter, and thus not subject to judicial review.

The application was quashed for want of jurisdiction.

The defendant Royal Bank of Canada filed a requisition under rule 2.1.01(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of the action.

The court determined under rule 2.1.01(6) that it may be appropriate to make an order dismissing or staying the action, and directed the registrar to give notice to the parties in Form 2.1B.

The endorsement outlines the procedures and timelines for written submissions by the parties in response to the notice, as set out in rules 2.1.01(7) through (10).

The decision concerns a mortgage fraud prosecution.

The accused, Ananthie Alex, was charged with conspiracy to utter forged documents and with knowingly making a false statement in writing to obtain credit.

The court found that Alex conspired with Hans Lauro to obtain a mortgage in the name of Lauro’s mother using falsified income information, but acquitted her on the count of knowingly making a false statement in writing, citing insufficient evidence that a false document was actually submitted to the lender.

The judgment provides a detailed review of the co-conspirator’s exception to the hearsay rule and the Carter test for admissibility of evidence in conspiracy cases.

The accused, Anis Rehman, was charged with sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching involving a young complainant at a private daycare in 2019.

The court reviewed the evidence of the complainant, the accused, and defence witnesses, and applied the principles of reasonable doubt and credibility assessment, especially as they relate to child witnesses.

The court found the complainant credible but concluded that the defence evidence raised a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.