SCJ 2025

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from a scooter accident on a municipal road.

The court found that the plaintiff, who was self-represented and did not appear or file materials, failed to establish that the road was in a state of non-repair or that any non-repair caused the accident.

The municipality established statutory defences under the Municipal Act, 2001, including that the pothole was within the minimum maintenance standards.

The action was dismissed and costs awarded to the defendant.

This costs endorsement addresses the appropriate amount of costs payable by the defendant to the plaintiff following a wrongful dismissal action under the simplified procedure.

The court reviews the parties’ conduct, the complexity of the case, the offers to settle, and the applicable rules, ultimately awarding the plaintiff the maximum costs permitted under Rule 76.12.1, plus reasonable disbursements, due to the defendant’s unreasonable settlement position and litigation conduct.

The court considered a motion by The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company (incorrectly named as Travelers Canada) for leave to amend the statement of claim, dismissal of the main action, a sealing order, and default judgment against Jamie Balasin.

The court granted leave to amend the misnomer and dismissed the main action with leave to continue the crossclaim, but stayed the default judgment motion pending proper service of the crossclaim and denied the sealing order, emphasizing the open court principle.

The court sentenced O’Neil Freeman for two counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, following a joint submission.

The decision reviews the factual background, the parties’ submissions, and the applicable sentencing principles, including the “gap principle” and the impact of systemic disadvantage.

The court imposed a sentence of one day plus 19.5 months’ credit for pre-sentence custody for one count, and a conditional sentence of two years less a day for the other, with strict house arrest and curfew conditions, recognizing the mitigating factors of rehabilitation, dated record, and hardship.

The respondent husband moved for partial summary judgment or a decision on a question of law regarding whether a pay equity award received by the applicant wife should be included in her net family property.

The court found that the portion of the pay equity award attributable to pre-separation wages, less amounts for injury to dignity, interest, and post-separation work, forms part of the applicant’s net family property.

The court ordered the applicant to pay costs to the respondent.

The appellant, J.D., appealed his convictions for two counts of sexual assault and the sentence imposed.

The appeal focused on whether the trial judge misapprehended the appellant’s evidence, erred in applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework, or committed palpable and overriding error in rejecting the appellant’s testimony.

The court found that the trial judge materially misapprehended aspects of the appellant’s evidence, particularly regarding who suggested returning to the trailer and the analogy of “narcolepsy” for the appellant’s fatigue.

These misapprehensions were central to the credibility assessment and warranted a new trial.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as moot.

The court granted judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Parham Pozhhan, for damages, pre-judgment interest, and substantial indemnity costs arising from the defendant Pedram Pozhhan’s breach of fiduciary duties and misappropriation of trust funds.

The court declined to award punitive damages but found the defendant’s conduct justified substantial indemnity costs.

The decision follows a prior partial default judgment confirming the plaintiff’s sole beneficial ownership of the property at issue.

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.

This decision concerns an anti-SLAPP motion brought by Pierre Roy, a student and local resident, against Sheridan Retail Inc., a developer redeveloping Sheridan Mall in Mississauga.

The developer sued Roy for defamation, inducing breach of contract, interference with economic relations, and trespass after he raised environmental, social, and safety concerns about the redevelopment.

The court found the lawsuit to be a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) aimed at silencing Roy’s public expression.

The court dismissed the developer’s claim, refused to allow the developer to “prune” its claim to trespass only, and awarded Roy $25,000 in damages and full-indemnity costs.

The court declared that the transfer of a wheelchair-accessible van from the respondent father to a friend was a fraudulent conveyance void against the applicant mother, a creditor.

The court ordered the proceeds of the subsequent sale of the van to be paid to the mother’s solicitors in trust to secure her equalization and support claims, and awarded costs against both respondents.

The decision reviews the legal framework for fraudulent conveyances and the tracing of proceeds under Ontario law.

This decision concerns an uncontested family law application in which the applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, child support, and permission to travel and renew documentation for the child without the father's consent.

The court found in favour of the mother on all substantive issues, imputing income to the father for child support purposes, awarding retroactive and ongoing child support, and dismissing the spousal support claim without prejudice due to lack of evidence.

The court also permitted the mother to travel with the child and renew government documentation without the father's consent, given the father's lack of involvement and history of family violence.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion for security for costs against Telecore, a corporate plaintiff, in a procurement action.

The court considered whether the AGC required leave to bring the motion, the sufficiency of Telecore’s assets, and whether Telecore was impecunious.

The court found Telecore to be impecunious but determined that the AGC’s delay in bringing the motion was not justified.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed, and no costs were awarded on the motion.

The court considered whether the plaintiff, Cory McGrath, sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function as a result of a motor vehicle collision, as required by the "threshold" in section 267.5(15) of the Insurance Act.

After a jury trial and detailed review of the evidence, including expert and lay testimony, the court found that Ms. McGrath met the threshold, entitling her to recover health care expenses and non-pecuniary loss.

The decision provides a thorough application of the statutory and regulatory framework, and the relevant case law, to the facts of the case.

The plaintiff, Datamy Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, Ka-Hang Yung and Vivien Yung, for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) relating to a residential property.

The defendants failed to pay a second deposit of $140,000 as required by the APS.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment for the unpaid deposit, rejecting the defendants’ arguments for relief from forfeiture and finding the deposit amount reasonable.

Alternatively, the court calculated damages based on the difference in sale price and related costs, but ultimately awarded the full unpaid deposit.

The plaintiff, Avi Berger, moved to stay a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) application pending the outcome of his Superior Court action, in which he claims a beneficial ownership interest in the property at issue.

The defendant Sammie Millis, the current owner, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the LTB has sole jurisdiction over tenancy and eviction matters, and that the Superior Court action regarding beneficial ownership can proceed independently.

The court found no special circumstances to warrant a stay and held that granting one would be unjust to the landlord.

The decision addresses a motion by Heather Lynne Brose for partition and sale of the matrimonial home, an advance on equalization, and financial disclosure in the context of divorce and equalization proceedings.

The court grants partition and sale, with a four-month stay, orders disclosure by a set date, and grants leave to amend pleadings.

The court reviews the legal principles governing partition and sale, the interplay with the Family Law Act, and the requirements for financial disclosure.

This appeal concerns whether Honda Canada Inc. is entitled to indemnity from Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Ltd. for class counsel fees and settlement administration costs arising from the settlement of class actions related to defective air bag actuator components.

The court upheld the arbitration award requiring Tokio to indemnify Honda for class counsel fees under the umbrella liability policy, but not for settlement administration costs, which were found to be excluded as recall or product withdrawal expenses.

The decision addresses a motion by the applicant, Ms. Hill-Reyes, to have the added respondent, Ms. Pena, declared in default for failing to serve and file an Answer in a high-conflict family law proceeding involving custody and adoption issues.

The court reviews the procedural history, the barriers faced by the self-represented respondent living abroad, and the repeated opportunities given to participate.

Ultimately, the court finds Ms. Pena in default and imposes the consequences set out in subrule 1(8.4) of the Family Law Rules, barring her from further participation except as a witness.