SCJ 2025

Hussein Harb was found guilty by a jury of kidnapping and attempted extortion of Mohammad Algunaid, related to a scheme to recover money lost in a Ponzi scheme.

The court considered the facts, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the principle of parity, noting that Harb played a lesser role than his co-accused, Kozak, who inflicted the violence.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence, followed by 18 months probation, with strict house arrest and ancillary orders, finding this fit and proportionate given Harb’s lesser culpability and lack of prior record.

The court allowed the appeal of Arlene Hastick from a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming the renewal of her Community Treatment Order (CTO) under the Mental Health Act.

The court found that the Board denied Ms. Hastick procedural fairness by repeatedly preventing her from asking relevant questions of her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Banik, and by relying on evidence about her 2016 hospitalization while refusing to allow her to challenge or clarify that evidence.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted Board.

The decision concerns an application under section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) for approval of a plan of arrangement by The Cannabist Company Holdings (Canada) Inc. and 16834434 Canada Inc., opposed by Murchinson Ltd. (on behalf of certain noteholders).

The court granted the final order approving the arrangement, which restructures the company’s senior notes, and dismissed Murchinson’s related oppression application.

The reasons address the fairness and reasonableness of the arrangement, the appropriateness of third-party releases, and the standing of Murchinson to bring an oppression claim.

Décision sur dépens à la suite d'une motion portant sur la compétence des tribunaux ontariens ou québécois concernant des questions parentales.

Le tribunal ordonne à l’intimée de payer 800 $ au requérant, en raison de la conduite déraisonnable de l’intimée et du succès du requérant, qui était autoreprésenté.

This cost decision follows a focused trial on retroactive child support.

The court found the mother, Ms. Sorrenti, to be the most successful party and ordered the father, Mr. Thompson, to pay $18,000 in costs.

The decision details Mr. Thompson’s unreasonable litigation conduct, including failure to provide financial disclosure and forcing unnecessary motions, justifying a substantial indemnity award.

The court also considered Ms. Sorrenti’s conduct but found Mr. Thompson’s actions more blameworthy.

The cost award is deemed child support for enforcement purposes.

This decision addresses costs following a motion to change parenting arrangements, including a proposed relocation of the child, M.B., from Ontario to British Columbia.

The court reviews the parties’ conduct, offers to settle, and financial circumstances, ultimately awarding costs to the successful party, Mr. Bowick, but in an amount reduced for proportionality and ability to pay.

The court considered an application by the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of France for the extradition of Prasanna Nallalingam to stand trial in France for murder and attempted murder.

The court found that a properly instructed jury could conclude that Nallalingam possessed the requisite mens rea for manslaughter and assault causing bodily harm, based on circumstantial evidence of his planning, provision of weapons, and command of the attack.

The committal order was granted under the Extradition Act.

The court considered whether a strip of land (the "0020 property") between the applicant's two properties was a public highway that should vest in the Town of Essex under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The applicant argued the land was a roadway on a registered plan of subdivision and should be owned by the Town.

The court found that the land was never dedicated or accepted as a public highway, was not used by the public, and was instead used by the respondent golf course for irrigation.

The application was dismissed and ownership confirmed in the respondent.

The court awarded the Applicants partial indemnity costs in the amount of $88,743.94 after finding that the Respondent developer was not entitled to charge certain adjustment amounts on closing under the agreements of purchase and sale.

The court found the Developer's conduct increased costs but did not rise to the level warranting substantial indemnity.

The decision reviews the appropriate scale and quantum of costs, referencing the Developer's failure to provide information and the resulting bifurcation of the proceeding.

The decision addresses two competing motions for the appointment of representative counsel for investors in a receivership proceeding involving Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc. The court reviews the procedural background, the need for representative counsel, and the competing proposals from Aird & Berlis LLP and Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP.

The court ultimately appoints Aird & Berlis LLP as representative counsel, finding their approach and fee structure preferable for efficiency, transparency, and certainty.

This decision concerns a motion under section 79 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, regarding the capacity of Carol Jacqueline Black.

The Court orders that Ms. Black undergo a capacity assessment, with her medical records and related materials to be released to all parties and the assessor.

The Court addresses the history of the parties' disputes, the involvement of various professionals, and the need for independent legal representation for Ms. Black.

The ruling balances the privacy interests of Ms. Black with the need for a fair process and the protection of vulnerable persons.

The court considered whether the plaintiff, Gaurav Tewari, should be permitted to bring a motion for an interlocutory injunction under Rule 40 of the Rules of Civil Procedure against multiple defendants, given his outstanding costs orders from previous litigation.

The court found that it would be unfair to allow further motions until the costs orders were satisfied, despite the plaintiff's claims of significant assets.

The motion was not permitted to proceed at this time.

The court sentenced David Morias for offences including possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a prohibited device, and possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The decision reviews the aggravating and mitigating factors, the impact of systemic anti-Black racism, and the appropriate sentencing range for mid-level fentanyl traffickers.

The court imposed a global sentence of 90 ⅔ months after credits for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions, with ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture.

This decision concerns the penalty for civil contempt by the defendants, who breached a Mareva order by failing to disclose real property in Spain and denying ownership under oath.

The court finds that the appropriate sanction is to prohibit the defendants from dealing with the Spanish property and to require that net rental income from the property be paid to the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice until personal liability is determined.

The court also awards full indemnity costs to the plaintiffs for the contempt motion, with a set-off for costs on the motion to set aside the Mareva injunction.

The court considered a motion by Hansa Mortgage Investment Corporation for a writ of possession and the discharge of a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) registered by the Fuamba family, who had resided in the property for over 15 years.

The court reviewed the legal and equitable factors for discharging a CPL, including the uniqueness of the property, the parties’ intentions, the presence of alternative claims for damages, and the balance of convenience.

The court found that while the property was unique to the Fuambas, the lack of equity and their agreement to vacate after July 15, 2025, rendered the CPL of little practical utility.

The court granted leave to issue a writ of possession (execution delayed until after July 15, 2025) and ordered the CPL discharged upon registration of a transfer under power of sale.

The plaintiff, Tiffany Longarini, sued four lawyers for breach of confidence after a settlement email she sent was disclosed to the Crown in a related criminal proceeding.

The court found that the email was not protected by settlement privilege due to its content and the context of its use, and that even if it were, disclosure was justified by the accused’s right to make full answer and defence.

The claim was struck without leave to amend.

The Bank of Nova Scotia brought a motion for leave to issue a writ of possession for a mortgaged property, following a 2015 judgment in its favour.

Louis and Effie Kakoutis, the plaintiffs and defendants to the counterclaim, opposed the motion.

The court reviewed the history of litigation, including prior actions, appeals, and a failed mediated settlement.

The court found that all persons in possession had received sufficient notice and that the requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure were met.

The court granted leave to issue the writ of possession and ordered that, for seven months, service on the Kakoutises be at their new address.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

This decision addresses a show cause proceeding against counsel, Jisuh Lee, for submitting a factum containing fictitious case citations generated by artificial intelligence in a civil estates matter.

The court reviews the duties of counsel to verify authorities, the new certification rule for facta, and the professional and ethical implications of AI use in legal practice.

The court finds that Ms. Lee has adequately purged any contempt through her admissions, apology, corrective actions, and commitment to further professional development, and dismisses the show cause order on conditions.

This costs decision follows the dismissal of an application by 2811230 Ontario Limited to delete an Order to Comply from title to its property.

The court awards elevated costs to the City of Niagara Falls, finding the application was without merit and brought for an improper motive, and that the applicant's conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding.