SCJ 2025

The decision addresses whether an appraisal conducted under section 128 of the Insurance Act is binding on an insurance broker who was not a party to the appraisal process.

The plaintiffs sought a determination under Rule 21.01(1)(a) that the appraisal’s finding of value should bind all parties, including the broker, in subsequent court proceedings.

The court held that Rule 21.01 was not the appropriate procedure for this determination, as the issue was not fully settled in law, was not raised in the pleadings, and involved mixed questions of fact and law.

The motion was dismissed.

The decision concerns a claim by Monique Miller and Michel Desjardins against Jacques Lajoie, a home inspector, and his company, for negligence and negligent misrepresentation in the conduct of a pre-purchase home inspection.

The court found that Mr. Lajoie failed to meet the standard of care required of a reasonable and prudent home inspector, particularly in failing to report in writing on significant, visible deficiencies in the foundation, roof, and windows.

The plaintiffs reasonably relied on the inspection report in deciding to purchase the property and suffered damages as a result.

The court awarded damages for the cost of repairs to the foundation, roof, and a portion of the windows and doors.

The court considered whether Fluid Hose & Coupling Inc. was an insured under a builders’ risk insurance policy and thus immune from a subrogated action for property damage.

The court found that the policy’s broad language included Fluid Hose as a subcontractor, barring the action against it.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs, instead fixing costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court sentenced Corbin Hucker to three years’ imprisonment on each of three counts of sexual assault, to be served concurrently, following a jury trial.

The offences involved non-consensual sexual activity with his intimate partner.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including the seriousness of the offences, the intimate partner context, the impact on the complainant, Hucker’s lack of criminal record, his youth at the time of the offences, and the significant emotional and social consequences he experienced.

The court imposed ancillary orders, including a DNA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a 20-year SOIRA order.

The court considered whether a dispute over the calculation of an earn-out under a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) should be referred to an independent accountant, as provided in the PSA, or determined by the court.

The applicants argued that the dispute, which concerned whether certain partnership units received by the respondents should be included in the earn-out calculation, fell within the accountant’s jurisdiction.

The respondents argued the issue was a legal one for the court.

The court held that the PSA’s language and commercial context indicated the parties intended all unresolved disputed items regarding the earn-out to be determined by an independent accountant, not just calculation disputes.

The court directed the parties to submit their dispute to an independent chartered accountant in accordance with the PSA.

The court considered whether the removal of an underground storage tank by the plaintiff, Fleetway Fuels Inc., was a “voluntary removal” under Endorsement No. 10 of an insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.

The court found that the removal was voluntary, as it was undertaken as a result of a contractual obligation in a commercial lease, not due to compulsion by law or governmental order.

The exclusion in the policy therefore applied, and the insurer was not required to indemnify the plaintiff for environmental cleanup costs discovered during the removal.

The plaintiff, Chicago Title Insurance Co., sought compliance with a prior order requiring the defendants, Lukas Gabor and Katarina Rybarova, to attend judgment debtor examinations.

After initial non-attendance, only Ms. Rybarova appeared and provided undertakings, some of which remain outstanding.

Mr. Gabor subsequently attended but then made an assignment into bankruptcy, resulting in a stay of proceedings against him.

The court adjourned the motion sine die as against Mr. Gabor and scheduled a case conference with Ms. Rybarova to address outstanding undertakings and the issue of costs.

This decision concerns an anti-SLAPP motion brought by the defendants, Trinitee Okoye and Olivia Singaye, seeking to stay or dismiss a defamation action by the plaintiffs, Reynolds Okoh, Axel Mensah, and 2357392 Ontario Inc. o/a The Palace Ottawa.

The court found that the impugned social media posts did not constitute expression on a matter of public interest within the meaning of section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Even if the threshold were met, the court held that the action had substantial merit and the defences of justification and fair comment were unlikely to succeed.

The motion was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses a motion by the City of Toronto and Adam Vaughan, creditors of 1631651 Ontario Inc., seeking an order that the assignment in bankruptcy does not take precedence over a prior order for payment and directing the Accountant to release funds to their counsel.

The court reviews the application of section 70(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and considers relevant case law from other jurisdictions and Ontario.

The motion is adjourned to allow further submissions on Ontario authorities.

The defendant, The Corporation of the Township of Ignace, sought an adjournment of the trial for a wrongful dismissal and breach of contract claim brought by the plaintiff, Lynda Marie Joan Colby, pending the outcome of a related appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in another case involving the same defendant and similar issues.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the main claim to be advanced at trial—breach of contract—would not be affected by the pending appeal, and that adjourning the trial would set a problematic precedent.

This decision concerns a motion to change child support and section 7 expenses brought by the paternal grandparents of J.G. against his mother, Kristy Ferreira.

The court found that the grandparents, having demonstrated a settled intention to treat J.G. as their child, are "parents" under the Family Law Act and thus subject to the Child Support Guidelines.

The court determined the appropriate sharing of retroactive and ongoing section 7 expenses, the child’s contribution to post-secondary costs, and the repayment schedule for retroactive support, emphasizing proportionality to household incomes and the best interests of the child.

This decision addresses a motion by Lan Ling to be added as a party to ongoing family law proceedings between Wentong (Wendy) Liu and her spouse, Yilan Yuan.

Lan, the mother of Yuan, sought to consolidate her civil trust claim with the family law application, arguing that certain assets held by Yuan were in trust for her and her husband, Ming.

The court granted consolidation of the civil and family proceedings, permitted Lan to pursue trust claims over specified assets, and required her to provide financial disclosure.

The court declined to allow Lan to act as litigation guardian for Ming due to insufficient evidence of his incapacity and a potential conflict of interest.

Costs were ordered to be borne by each party.

This decision is an appeal by Alan Saskin from the order of Associate Justice Ilchenko, sitting as Registrar in Bankruptcy, refusing an absolute discharge and imposing conditions under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court reviews the procedural history, the evidence, and the legal standards for discharge, including the meaning of "moral blameworthiness" under s. 173(1)(a) and the duties of a bankrupt under s. 173(1)(o).

The appeal is dismissed, with the court finding no error in the Registrar's factual or legal conclusions.

The applicant sought an order for the sale of the matrimonial home, an interim disbursement or advance on equalization, preservation and non-depletion orders, and costs.

The court found that only the interim disbursement/advance issue was properly before the court, but issued an order for the sale of the matrimonial home by agreement.

The applicant did not meet the burden for an interim disbursement or advance.

The respondent was awarded partial costs.

This costs award follows the dismissal of a constitutional challenge to provisions of the Family Law Act and Divorce Act.

The court considered the parties' submissions on costs, the novelty and importance of the issues, and the proportionality of the costs sought.

The court declined to order full indemnity costs as requested by the respondent, instead awarding $25,000, finding this amount reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

The court considered a claim by Country Wide Homes Upper Thornhill Estates Inc. against Xiaowan Liu for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) for a luxury home.

Liu failed to close the transaction, alleging language barriers and misrepresentation regarding environmental issues and a Certificate of Property Use (CPU).

The court found that Liu was an experienced purchaser, had the assistance of a real estate agent, and received all required disclosures, including the CPU.

The court held that the plaintiff met its disclosure obligations under the Environmental Protection Act and that Liu was liable for the shortfall on resale and carrying costs, totaling $741,999.

The counterclaim was dismissed.

The court considered a motion by the plaintiff, Ashley Francis, to set aside a Registrar’s dismissal order for delay and for summary judgment against the remaining defendants, Robert Schneider and Sherri Hughes.

The court refused to hear the summary judgment motion but granted the motion to set aside the dismissal, subject to a timetable for the action’s progress.

The decision reviews the application of the Reid factors for setting aside a dismissal, the contextual approach to delay, and the balancing of prejudice and public interest in deciding matters on their merits.

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate sentence for Ammaan Charley, who was convicted of multiple serious offences, including firearms, drug trafficking, robbery, and criminal organization offences.

The court analyzes aggravating and mitigating factors, the impact of systemic racism, the harshness of pre-sentence custody, and the application of the totality principle.

The final sentence imposed is 16 years, with credit for pre-sentence custody, and includes ancillary orders such as a firearms prohibition and DNA order.

The plaintiffs, Christopher Morgis and Jo-Anne Morgis, brought a motion under Rule 48.14(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for an extension of time to set their action down for trial and for a timetable for the completion of remaining steps.

The action arose from a dispute over the removal of personal property and chattels from a property sold under power of sale.

The court reviewed the lengthy procedural history, including duplicative actions, delays, and failures to comply with procedural requirements.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and that the defendants would suffer non-compensable prejudice if the action were allowed to continue.

The motion was dismissed and the action was dismissed for delay.