SCJ 2025

The court considered a motion by the Attorney General of Canada to strike the plaintiff’s action, which alleged negligence in the administration of pilot medical certification.

The plaintiff, a commercial pilot, had his medical certificate refused due to a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, but was later found fit and granted an unrestricted certificate after a successful appeal.

The court found that the regulatory regime’s purpose is public safety, not the protection of individual economic interests, and that no private law duty of care is owed by Transport Canada to pilots in these circumstances.

The action was struck in its entirety.

This decision resolves a family law dispute between Quyen Dinh Nguyen and Linh Thi Hanh Nguyen regarding child support, section 7 expenses, division of the matrimonial home, equalization, spousal support, and parenting time.

The court upholds the validity of the parties' marriage contract, finds the father in arrears of child support, orders equal sharing of section 7 expenses, and determines the father's 30% interest in the matrimonial home.

The court dismisses the father's claim for spousal support and equalization, and affirms the agreed parenting time schedule as being in the best interests of the child.

The court considered a Crown application to admit similar fact evidence in a sexual assault prosecution involving two complainants, H.M. and E.C. The court found that the probative value of the evidence, including the similarity of the alleged conduct, the relationship of the complainants to the accused, and the timing and location of the events, outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The court also addressed the issue of possible collusion between the complainants and found that, on a balance of probabilities, the evidence was not tainted by collusion.

The application to admit the similar fact evidence was granted.

The court considered costs following a trial in which the plaintiff, Domenic Gesualdi, succeeded in proving breach of contract and negligence against the defendants regarding the rebuilding of two vintage Ferrari engines.

The court fixed costs payable by the defendants to the plaintiff at $300,000 and to the third parties at $279,950.91, rejecting the defendants’ arguments for costs in their favour and their attempt to shift third party costs to the plaintiff.

The decision reviews the principles for fixing costs, including proportionality, reasonableness, and the impact of settlement offers.

The applicant, Thomy Baez-Eusebio, brought two applications: a disclosure application for the Information to Obtain (ITO) for a search warrant under the Liquor Licence Act, and a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence obtained from a Honda Civic, alleging a breach of his section 8 Charter rights.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that the applicant lacked standing to challenge the Liquor Licence Act search warrant and that the police had reasonable grounds to seize and search the Honda Civic.

The court also denied leave to cross-examine the affiant of the ITO, finding no misleading statements or deficiencies in the warrant process.

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

The plaintiffs were awarded substantial indemnity costs due to the egregious nature of the defendant's conduct and the failure to accept reasonable offers to settle.

The court found the plaintiffs' costs reasonable and rejected the defendant's arguments for lower costs, emphasizing the importance and complexity of the proceedings and the impact on the drag community.

This decision resolves a high-conflict family law dispute involving parenting, child support, equalization, and restraining orders.

The court found that the children’s best interests are served by residing primarily with the father, who is granted sole decision-making responsibility.

The mother is ordered to pay child support and a significant equalization payment, and is restrained from communicating with the father or his employer except as necessary for parenting.

The court declined to order police enforcement or spousal support, and provided detailed reasons for each aspect of the relief granted.

The court granted an interlocutory injunction to Titan Tool & Die Limited, restraining Unifor, its Local 195, and named individuals from blockading the applicant’s premises and obstructing the removal of customer-owned tooling.

The decision addresses whether the dispute was a “labour dispute” under the Courts of Justice Act, the procedural and jurisdictional issues raised, and the application of the RJR-MacDonald test for interlocutory injunctions.

The court found the protest was not a labour dispute, that the requirements for an injunction were met even if it were, and that the balance of convenience, irreparable harm, and serious issue to be tried all favoured granting the injunction.

The accused, Idriss Buni, was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon against Muna Riyaleh.

The central issue was whether Ms. Riyaleh was the victim of an unprovoked knife attack by Mr. Buni or whether she attacked him and was injured during a struggle.

The court found Ms. Riyaleh to be a credible witness and rejected Mr. Buni’s account as contrived and inconsistent with the evidence.

The court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of Mr. Buni’s guilt and found him guilty as charged.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following a stay of proceedings due to the plaintiff’s failure to promptly disclose a settlement with certain defendants.

The court reviews the history of the Anton Piller Order, the Comeback Order, and the subsequent motions, ultimately awarding partial indemnity costs to the successful defendants, Marc Castillo and Castillo HR Consulting Inc., in the amount of $45,000.

The court declines to revisit costs already determined by a previous order and limits recovery to the portion of the motion related to the stay, excluding costs for the Anton Piller Order and preparation of a discovery plan.

This costs decision follows the dismissal of both the plaintiff’s action and the defendant’s counterclaim in a dispute over a right-of-way between neighbouring commercial properties.

The Canadian Dental Hygienists Association (CDHA) sought costs for both the trial and a prior motion.

The court found that CDHA was the successful party and awarded it $35,000 in costs, all-inclusive, payable by Ms. Layton.

The decision reviews the relevant legal principles, including the discretion of the court under the Courts of Justice Act and the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and applies the cost limits under the Simplified Procedure.

This costs endorsement follows a 13.5-day trial in a family law matter.

The court considered the parties’ submissions on costs, the divided success at trial, and the reasonableness of offers to settle.

The court applied the Family Law Rules and relevant case law, ultimately ordering the respondent, Mr. Elliott, to pay the applicant, Ms. Churchill, $15,000 in costs.

This endorsement addresses the process for resolving outstanding property issues between the parties following a Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) hearing.

The court sets out a step-by-step procedure for the parties to complete a chart detailing disputed assets, their value, and supporting evidence, with the aim of facilitating a final decision on division of property.

The approach emphasizes clarity, fairness, and finality, including a coin toss mechanism for assets that cannot be attributed to either party.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed the Crown's appeal from an absolute discharge imposed on Jennel Christie for assault causing bodily harm.

The Court found the sentence demonstrably unfit, given the seriousness of the offence, the lack of consideration for public interest, and errors in the sentencing judge’s reasoning regarding employment and immigration consequences.

The Court substituted a nine-month conditional sentence with strict conditions, followed by one year of probation.

The defendant, Samantha Robinson (carrying on business as Postering Ottawa), brought an anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action brought by Diffusart International and Marc Agostini.

The court found that while Robinson’s expressions related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiffs’ claim had substantial merit and Robinson did not have valid defences.

The court concluded that the harm to the plaintiffs outweighed the public interest in protecting Robinson’s expression, and dismissed the anti-SLAPP motion without costs.

This decision resolves a family law trial between Tammy Sundberg and Kevin Sundberg, addressing the date of separation, equalization of property, child and spousal support, and related financial issues.

The court determined the date of separation as September 7, 2020, and ordered an equalization payment, child support, and spousal support, with detailed analysis of income imputation, property division, and section 7 expenses.

The court also addressed the costs of a business valuator report and declined to order occupation rent or prejudgment interest.

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

This decision addresses an application by several media organizations for virtual access to a high-profile murder trial, invoking the open court principle.

The court reviews the constitutional and statutory foundations of open courts, the discretion of judges to permit or deny virtual access, and the practical realities facing media coverage.

Ultimately, the court finds that while the open court principle does not require virtual access, it may be granted at the court’s discretion in light of modern realities and the decline of local news coverage.

The plaintiff, Fady Dawood, brought a motion for summary judgment against Popes Property Holdings Inc. (PPH) and Nicholas John Pope, alleging breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for real property.

The defendants agreed the matter should be resolved by summary judgment and did not oppose judgment against PPH, but Pope sought reverse summary judgment to dismiss the claim against him personally.

The court found PPH liable for the plaintiff’s losses but dismissed the action against Pope, holding that PPH had properly adopted the contract after incorporation and that there was no basis to pierce the corporate veil or impose personal liability on Pope.