SCJ 2025

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

The court acquitted TM of all charges, including assault, sexual assault, and assault with a weapon, after a judge-alone trial.

The decision turned on significant credibility and reliability concerns with the complainant's evidence, including inconsistencies, omissions, and changes over time, as well as a lack of corroboration.

The court also found that the evidence supported a plausible case of self-defence in relation to the alleged assault causing bodily harm to CW.

The ruling provides a detailed analysis of the law on credibility, reasonable doubt, and self-defence, and addresses the impact of trauma and racial context on the assessment of post-offence conduct.

The court dismissed Farm Credit Canada's application for the appointment of a receiver over the assets of Kapital Produce Ltd. and related companies.

The court found that, although there were alleged events of default under the credit agreement, most were cured within the required period and did not constitute actionable defaults.

The court held that the appointment of a receiver was not just or convenient in the circumstances, given the significant value of the security held by FCC, the lack of evidence of irreparable harm or risk to the assets, and the Debtors' ongoing efforts to resolve the indebtedness.

Cette décision porte sur la compétence des tribunaux de l’Ontario ou du Québec pour traiter des questions parentales concernant l’enfant Ivy-Jesse, née en 2016.

Après un historique complexe de déplacements entre provinces et de procédures judiciaires, la Cour supérieure de justice de l’Ontario conclut qu’elle n’a pas compétence pour instruire la requête de la mère, la résidence habituelle de l’enfant étant demeurée au Québec en raison d’un déplacement illicite.

La cour rappelle les principes de la Loi portant réforme du droit de l’enfance et de la jurisprudence pertinente, et confirme que les ordonnances temporaires de l’Ontario demeurent en vigueur jusqu’à ce qu’elles soient remplacées par une ordonnance du tribunal compétent au Québec.

This costs decision follows an application under the Partition Act for the sale of two jointly owned properties.

The applicant, Tara-Lee Daniel, sought and was granted an order for the sale of the properties, with the only contested issue at the hearing being the terms of sale for a cottage property.

The court awarded Daniel full indemnity costs and awarded the intervening neighbours partial costs, finding the respondents' opposition to be without merit and their conduct to have unnecessarily increased costs.

The court sentenced Keron Alvarez for aggravated assault following a two-on-one attack that left the victim, David Shellnutt, with life-threatening injuries.

The decision reviews the facts, procedural history, impact on the victim, Alvarez’s background and criminal record, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court found joint liability based on common intention, rejected provocation as a defence, and imposed a three-year penitentiary sentence (less pre-sentence custody credit), with ancillary orders.

The decision discusses the range of sentence for aggravated assault and the principles of sentencing, including rehabilitation, deterrence, and denunciation.

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

The court sentenced Arthur Kotula for two counts of dangerous operation causing death and two counts of dangerous operation causing bodily harm, following a fatal multi-vehicle collision.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including Kotula’s lack of prior record, his immigration status, and the impact on the victims’ families.

The court imposed a global sentence of six and a half years, with ancillary orders including a DNA order, a 15-year driving prohibition, and a weapons prohibition.

The decision discusses the sentencing range for dangerous driving offences and the effect of recent legislative amendments.

This endorsement addresses a motion in the context of a proposed arrangement involving Converge Technology Solutions Corp. and 16728421 Canada Inc. (HIG) under section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

After an unsolicited acquisition proposal and subsequent amendments to the arrangement, the parties resolved the motion on consent, resulting in the dismissal of the motion with prejudice and without costs.

The court also considered and declined a request to continue a sealing order, finding that the justification for confidentiality no longer existed.

This endorsement addresses an urgent case conference regarding the content of a press release to be issued by Converge Technology Solutions Corp. if an Acquisition Proposal is received and deemed a Superior Proposal.

The court considered whether the press release should include the name of the party submitting the Acquisition Proposal and the proposed share price.

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) supported disclosure of both, and the court agreed, finding this approach consistent with previous orders and directions.

The court acquitted Richard Ray Smith of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, but convicted him of the lesser included offence of possession of a Schedule 1 substance.

The decision turned on the credibility and reliability of the evidence, the circumstantial nature of the Crown’s case, and the application of the W.(D.) analysis.

The court found that while the amount of fentanyl was consistent with trafficking, it was also consistent with personal use for a heavy user, and the packaging, cash, and other items did not support an inference of trafficking beyond a reasonable doubt.

This endorsement addresses urgent interim relief in a contested plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act involving Converge Technology Solutions Corp. and 16728421 Canada Inc. (HIG).

The dispute arose after Converge received an unsolicited proposal from a third party, leading to motions regarding confidentiality, publication bans, and the process for shareholder notification.

The court continued interim sealing and publication ban orders until the facts crystallize, particularly regarding whether a "Superior Proposal" is received and determined by the board.

The decision applies the Supreme Court’s test for discretionary limits on court openness, balancing the need to protect commercially sensitive information with the principle of open courts.

This decision concerns the prosecution of Victor Perez for multiple sexual offences against a 12-year-old complainant, H.D. The court addresses the admissibility and credibility of evidence, the application of the defence of mistake of age, and the sufficiency of steps taken by the accused to ascertain the complainant’s age.

The court finds Perez guilty on six counts, including invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault, sexual interference, luring, and making child pornography, but not guilty on a count of breaching a prohibition order.

The judgment provides detailed analysis of the law on circumstantial evidence, credibility, child witness evidence, and the legal standards for mistake of age and sexual offences involving minors.

This decision concerns a failed real estate transaction between Brighton Breeze Ltd. and Noel Property Management Ltd. for a waterfront property in Brighton, Ontario.

The dispute centered on a notice registered on title by a neighbouring condominium corporation, which led to the collapse of the sale.

The court found that Noel was entitled to rely on the annulment clause in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) after Brighton failed to waive its objection to title.

The court dismissed Brighton’s claim for specific performance, ordered the discharge of the Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), and granted summary judgment in favour of Noel.

This decision concerns an appeal under section 45(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, from an arbitral award regarding four disputes arising out of a major public-private partnership infrastructure project (Highway 427 expansion).

The appellant, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario (as represented by the Minister of Transportation and Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation), challenged the arbitral tribunal’s interpretation of the Project Agreement on four issues: the Crossfall Dispute, the Zenway Boulevard Dispute, the 407 ETR Dispute, and the 2014-2016 Dispute.

The court held that the tribunal correctly identified and applied the principles of contractual interpretation, found no extricable errors of law, and dismissed the appeal.

The decision concerns the extradition of Adeyanju Olaniyan, Rachel O’Connor, and Timothy Balogun to the United States to face prosecution for an alleged fraud scheme involving the use of spoofed calls to obtain and resell medical supplies.

The court reviews the evidence, including voice identification, financial records, and circumstantial evidence, and finds that the evidence is sufficient to justify committal for extradition under the Extradition Act.

The court addresses the reliability of voice identification evidence and the legal standards for committal, ultimately granting the extradition applications.

The Bank of Nova Scotia sought leave to issue a notice of garnishment to enforce a 2014 judgment against Ronald William Arnold, after more than six years had passed.

The court reviewed the requirements under the Rules of Civil Procedure for seeking such leave, including the need to show no waiver or acquiescence by the plaintiff and the absence of detrimental reliance by the defendant.

The court found that the Bank had made continuous efforts to enforce the judgment and contact the defendant, who acknowledged but refused to pay the debt.

The court granted leave to issue the notice of garnishment.

The accused was charged with making and possessing child pornography, specifically text messages, contrary to sections 163.1(2) and 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The trial focused on whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person depicted in the messages was under 18 years old.

The court reviewed the evidentiary record, including an agreed statement of facts and the text messages exchanged between the accused and an undercover officer.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Villaroman and R. v. Starr regarding circumstantial evidence and the standard of proof.

Ultimately, the court found that the only reasonable inference was that the numbers "13" and "14" in the messages referred to age, and convicted the accused on both counts.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of an appeal by the Defendants, David Wu and Opus Fitness Investment Inc., against a decision of Associate Justice Perron.

The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff, Ottawa Credit Exchange Limited, increased costs by raising a new argument on appeal.

The Court disagreed, finding the Plaintiff’s argument was responsive and that the Defendants themselves increased costs by raising an unfounded jurisdictional argument.

The Court awarded costs to the Plaintiff in the amount of $4,881.60, inclusive of HST.

The court considered whether to depart from the statutory prejudgment interest (PJI) rate under the Courts of Justice Act in favour of a higher rate, following a breach of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The plaintiff sought a higher PJI rate based on market returns and the circumstances of the case.

The court found that the statutory rate undercompensated the plaintiff and, after reviewing the relevant statutory factors and case law, exercised its discretion to award a higher average rate of 3.17%.