SCJ 2025

The decision addresses an application by Edwin Capehart to exclude evidence on the basis of alleged violations of his Charter rights, specifically regarding a warrantless download of cellphone data and the validity of two search warrants.

The court finds a breach of s. 8 of the Charter due to police delay in seeking a warrant after a warrantless download, but ultimately admits the evidence after a Grant analysis.

The court finds Capehart guilty on most counts, including firearms and drug offences, and not guilty on two counts.

The court considered a Crown application to admit hearsay statements made by the deceased to a friend, Rebecca Guindon, identifying O.W. as the perpetrator of a prior shooting, in a trial for first-degree murder and attempted murder.

The application was dismissed.

The court found that the statements lacked sufficient procedural and substantive reliability to be admitted for their truth under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court also rejected their admissibility under the "state of mind" exception, finding the statements incapable of supporting the inferences the Crown sought regarding motive or animosity between the deceased and O.W.

The court found Pal Pintyi guilty of manslaughter, not murder, in the death of his brother-in-law, Robert Racz.

The decision turned on whether the Crown had proven the intent required for murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court accepted that Pintyi acted out of fear and anger after years of abuse and threats from Racz, culminating in a confrontation where Pintyi struck Racz with a steel pipe and kicked him.

The evidence did not establish the necessary intent for murder, and the court found a reasonable inference that Pintyi acted impulsively in response to provocation.

The partial defence of provocation was not considered necessary, as the intent for murder was not proven.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff’s action arising from a motor vehicle accident involving escaped cattle.

The court found no evidence of negligence, breach of duty of care, or public nuisance on the part of the defendants.

The decision emphasizes the requirement for the responding party to put their best foot forward on a summary judgment motion and clarifies that the mere escape of a farm animal is insufficient to establish liability without evidence of negligent action or inaction.

The court found that Empire Steel Inc. breached its sublease with AZZ Galvanizing Canada Limited by overcharging for hydro, contrary to the contractual requirement to pass on only the actual cost of utilities.

Empire’s attempt to justify the overcharges by reference to alternative agreements and a retroactive TMI reconciliation was rejected as lacking credibility and good faith.

The court awarded AZZ $418,876 for hydro overcharges, subject to a $20,000 set-off for outdoor storage, and dismissed all other counterclaims and crossclaims.

The applicants, purchasers of units in a townhouse complex, sought a declaration that the developer was not entitled to charge them certain adjustment amounts on closing under their agreements of purchase and sale.

The court found that the developer was not entitled to pass on utility infrastructure costs paid to contractors, trades, and other third parties, but only those paid to the municipality or utility service providers, and for meter installation.

The court also found the developer was not entitled to charge $800 for an extension of the closing date.

The application was granted, and a reference on damages was directed.

The appellant, Brandie Spagnolo, appealed her conviction for two counts of disobeying a court order under section 127(1) of the Criminal Code.

She argued that the underlying Family Court order was invalid because the Children’s Aid Society commenced its protection application in the wrong court.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the proceedings were properly before the Family Court and that the collateral attack rule prevented the appellant from challenging the validity of the order in this context.

The appeal was dismissed.

The court considered an application by Frank Iannace to set aside his late father's will, which disinherited him in favour of his brother, Peter Iannace.

Frank alleged lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence.

The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding undue influence, and granted certificates of pending litigation (CPL) and preservation orders over certain estate assets, but not over a property owned by a corporation.

The court also ordered disclosure and partial indemnity costs.

The applicant, Ann Marie Alexander Bedell, sought interim sole decision-making responsibility for the children and child support based on imputed income to the respondent, Camiel Wayne Bedell.

The court declined to grant sole decision-making responsibility, finding no evidence that joint decision-making was not in the children's best interests.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on his prior earning history, finding he was intentionally under-employed and that his decision to return to school was not a reasonable educational need in the circumstances.

Interim child support was ordered based on an imputed income of $137,610 per annum.

The court considered costs following the resolution of four building permit appeals brought by Rothmar Holdings Inc. against the City of Cornwall.

After the City issued permits for all properties before the hearing, the parties argued only costs.

Rothmar sought substantial indemnity costs, alleging bad faith by the City, while the City sought partial indemnity costs or no costs.

The court declined to award costs to either party, finding it inappropriate to investigate the merits, apply costs factors, or determine relative success in the absence of findings on the substantive issues.

The court also declined to award costs of a preliminary evidentiary motion.

The plaintiff, David Richard Reid, brought a motion to set aside the Registrar’s order dismissing his 2015 action for delay.

The court reviewed the history of related litigation between Reid and the Town of Bracebridge, including prior settlements, subsequent actions, and procedural steps.

Applying the contextual approach to the four-factor test for setting aside a dismissal for delay, the court found that Reid failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, did not show inadvertence, and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice to the defendants.

The motion was dismissed and the Registrar’s dismissal order confirmed.

This mid-trial ruling addresses two issues in a medical negligence jury trial: (1) the proper form of the jury questions on causation, and (2) whether the jury should be required to provide reasons or particulars for their verdict on causation.

The court reviews the relevant case law and determines that the "but for" test should be used in the jury questions on causation, rather than the "caused or contributed to" language, given the facts of the case.

The court also declines to require the jury to provide reasons or particulars for their finding on causation, citing the risk of confusion and the lack of necessity in the circumstances.

The plaintiffs moved to amend the Certification Order to permit a claim for punitive damages in a class action concerning PFAS contamination allegedly caused by the National Research Council of Canada.

The court reviewed new evidence suggesting the NRC knew or ought to have known about the contamination earlier than previously established.

The court held that the plaintiffs must first bring a motion to amend their pleadings before the Certification Order could be amended, adjourning the motion to add punitive damages as a common issue until that time.

The plaintiff, Howard Walton operating as Norseman Racing Stable, sued Fort Erie Live Racing Consortium for negligence in assigning an incorrect carry weight to his horse, One Bay Hemingway, in the Lake Erie Stakes race.

The court found that while Fort Erie owed a duty of care to horse owners, it did not breach the standard of care in this case.

The error in carry weight assignment was not due to negligence by Fort Erie staff, who reasonably relied on available information.

The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed.

This decision resolves a family law trial between Louris Korie and Henri Korie, addressing property division, support, unjust enrichment, a restraining order, and costs.

The court orders the equalization payment to be made by pension rollover, dismisses the unjust enrichment and restraining order claims, and sets the commencement of support to the month after the sale of the matrimonial home.

Costs are divided, with the applicant ordered to pay $4,000 to the respondent.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Ernst & Young LLP, finding that the limitation period for the plaintiffs’ action had expired.

The decision reviews the contractual and statutory limitation periods, the relevant facts, and the legal standards for summary judgment, ultimately concluding that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The decision concerns a motion by Saad Aljabri and related parties for leave to issue a counterclaim in a complex civil action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed counterclaim for abuse of process and conspiracy was statute-barred under Ontario law, and that the applicants failed to prove that Saudi law applied or that any exception to the limitation period existed.

The court also found that the proposed claims for declaratory relief against additional parties were not supported by a tenable cause of action.

The risk of prejudice to the plaintiffs, including loss of the scheduled trial date and increased costs, further supported dismissal.

The court considered an application by police officers Justin Lafleur and Rodney Degray to quash subpoenas issued by M.D. in the context of a mandamus application seeking to compel the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) to lay charges.

The court found that M.D. had not established that the officers were likely to have relevant, material, and admissible evidence for the judicial review.

The application to quash the subpoenas was granted, as the evidence sought did not fall within the recognized exceptions for admitting new evidence on judicial review.

The decision grants the motion of Saad Khalid S. Al Jabri for leave to issue a commission and letters of request to obtain evidence from witnesses outside Ontario for use at trial.

The court finds that the anticipated evidence of the proposed witnesses is material to issues in the action, and that the request is bona fide.

The ruling addresses the test for issuing commissions and letters of request, emphasizing the importance of a fair and full trial, and applies the test to several categories of proposed witnesses, including alleged co-conspirators, foreign officials, and counterterrorism experts.