SCJ 2025

The plaintiff, Ahmed Abada, brought an action against his former PhD supervisor, the University of Ottawa, and a former friend, alleging damages for loss of earnings, general and punitive damages, and various torts arising from his removal from the PhD program.

The court found that the core of the dispute was academic in nature and that Abada had already availed himself of the university's internal appeal processes, which resolved the issues of bursary payment and academic progress.

The court dismissed all claims, finding no negligence, breach of contract, or tortious conduct by the defendants, and held that Abada was primarily responsible for his failure to complete the program due to personal and legal issues.

The court granted the applicant's motion for partition and sale of a jointly owned property, ordering that 50% of the proceeds be released to the applicant and that she be reimbursed for funeral and carrying costs.

The respondents' objections, including claims of loans and entitlement to a greater share, were rejected due to lack of evidence and legal standing.

The court found the applicant was entitled to her share as a 50% title owner, and the respondents' claims, if any, would be against the estate, not the applicant's share.

The court sentenced Evan Mitchell for multiple firearms and drug offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and breach of a weapons prohibition order.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offences, the offender’s background, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the application of sentencing principles such as totality, parity, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism.

The court imposed a global sentence of 55 months after credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh custodial conditions, with ancillary orders including a DNA order, lifetime weapons prohibition, and forfeiture.

This costs endorsement addresses the aftermath of a motion to amend a statement of claim and related motions to strike in a commercial dispute.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend and dismissed the defendants' motion to strike, with the defendants voluntarily withdrawing an allegation of similar fact evidence.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs, but the court awarded only partial indemnity costs, reduced to $10,000, due to the plaintiffs' own conduct and drafting issues that contributed to the need for the motions and adjournments.

This sentencing decision concerns M.S., who was found guilty of sexual interference and two counts of assault against his daughters, A1 and A2.

The court reviews the facts of the offences, the impact on the victims, the offender’s background including Indigenous heritage and intergenerational trauma, and the results of a Gladue report and Sentencing Circle.

The court considers the principles of sentencing, including denunciation, deterrence, and the appropriateness of a conditional sentence.

Ultimately, the court imposes a conditional sentence of two years less a day for sexual interference, concurrent 90-day sentences for assault, followed by two years’ probation and various ancillary orders.

The court interprets Article 7 of Floyd Kersey’s will, determining the proper distribution of his Canadian property where a named beneficiary predeceased him.

The court finds that the testator intended a per stirpes distribution, so that the share of a predeceased beneficiary passes to their issue, rather than lapsing or being distributed per capita among surviving named beneficiaries.

The application was unopposed and the applicant was awarded full indemnity costs from the estate, with a portion of costs personally payable by a respondent who evaded service.

The court considered written submissions on costs following the plaintiffs' success in two related defamation actions against the defendant.

The plaintiffs were awarded substantial indemnity costs in both actions, reflecting the court's view of the defendant's egregious conduct and the importance of deterrence.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments for lower costs and found the plaintiffs' bills of costs reasonable, noting the complexity and significance of the proceedings, including the involvement of expert witnesses and an intervenor.

This decision addresses a lien action under the Construction Act, where the plaintiffs allege a contract for services with the defendants for which they have not been paid.

The court reviews the parties' compliance with section 39 of the Act, the sufficiency of particulars and document inspection, and the need for a timetable to move the proceeding forward.

The court finds the defendants' response to the section 39 request sufficient, denies the plaintiffs' requests for further particulars and inspection, and orders the plaintiffs to plead and attend cross-examination.

Costs are awarded to the defendants.

Cette décision porte sur une motion du père intimé visant à exercer son temps parental avec les trois enfants du mariage en Suisse durant l’été 2025.

La mère s’oppose à ce que le père ait dix jours consécutifs de temps parental et propose des conditions alternatives, notamment le retour quotidien des enfants.

Le tribunal analyse l’intérêt supérieur des enfants, la répartition des frais de voyage, la question de la résidence habituelle, et les garanties de sécurité.

L’ordonnance accorde au père dix jours consécutifs de temps parental en Suisse, avec partage des frais et diverses conditions logistiques et de sécurité.

This decision concerns the transition of the receivership of the "The One" development project at Yonge and Bloor in Toronto to Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The court granted a discharge order for the receiver, an initial CCAA order, and approved a transaction with Tridel Builders Inc. for project completion.

The court also denied an adjournment request from a late-appearing stakeholder, approved the appointment of a monitor and chief restructuring officer, and authorized various charges and reliefs to facilitate restructuring and maximize value for stakeholders.

The decision addresses a motion by Gowing Contractors Ltd. and Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. to strike the statement of defence of Walsh Construction Company Canada and Walsh Construction Co., and to stay related actions, on the basis that Walsh failed to immediately disclose a settlement with the City of Toronto in a related action.

The court found that the settlement did not entirely change the litigation landscape of the actions involving Gowing and Zurich, and therefore the immediate disclosure doctrine did not apply.

The motion was dismissed.

The court considered whether the respondent landlord was required to provide audited statements of Additional Rent under a commercial lease, and whether the landlord was estopped from claiming rent for a period prior to January 1, 2021.

The court found that the lease unambiguously required audited statements, meaning statements verified by an independent accountant, and that the respondent had not fulfilled this obligation.

The court also found that the landlord was estopped from claiming rent for the period prior to January 1, 2021, due to a course of conduct and representations made to the applicant tenant, and ordered the landlord to provide audited statements and reimburse any overpayments.

The decision addresses two contested issues in a family law motion: (1) whether income should be imputed to the Respondent, Shannon Turner Zaharia, for the purpose of determining temporary child support, and (2) whether the proceeds from the sale of the jointly owned property at 86 Woodland Crescent, Petawawa, Ontario, should be paid out to the parties or held in trust pending further order.

The court declined to impute income to the Respondent at this interim stage, finding insufficient evidence of intentional underemployment.

The court also ordered that the net proceeds from the sale of the property be held in trust pending further order or agreement, given the outstanding determination of equalization entitlement.

The decision addresses whether the complainant D.P. may give recognition evidence identifying S.P. and Geza Gelencser in videos found on a laptop seized from Mr. Gelencser’s home.

The court finds that D.P. is in a better position than the jury to identify S.P. and Mr. Gelencser based on her prior acquaintance and specific knowledge, and admits the evidence.

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

The court dismissed Milad Babadi’s motion for judicial recusal and related relief as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The decision reviews the strong presumption of judicial impartiality, the proper remedy of appeal, and the hallmarks of vexatious litigation.

The court found Mr. Babadi’s conduct and submissions to be a textbook example of vexatious litigation and stayed his motion, prohibiting further motions without leave.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s action as an abuse of process under rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, whose license to practice law was previously revoked for professional misconduct, commenced a new action against the Law Society of Ontario and its counsel, alleging malfeasance in public office.

The court found that the action was a continuation of previously litigated issues and exhibited hallmarks of vexatious litigation, including repeated attempts to re-litigate matters already decided and naming opposing counsel as defendants.

The court also held that the defendants’ conduct was protected by absolute privilege.