SCJ 2025

The plaintiff, Matthew Deveaux, sought leave under section 17 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act to proceed with claims against the Crown and other defendants, alleging a cover-up and various statutory breaches following his arrest and prosecution.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to meet the threshold for leave, as there was no reasonable possibility of success in establishing bad faith or malice by the Crown.

The motion was dismissed, and the action declared a nullity as against the Crown.

The court found Michael Alexander Llanos guilty of possession of drugs and a prohibited weapon (black brass knuckles) for the purpose of trafficking, following a search of his apartment.

The case turned on circumstantial evidence, including the location and packaging of drugs, the presence of drug paraphernalia, and the nature of Llanos' relationship with his deceased girlfriend, Kyla Joyner.

The court rejected alternative theories that Joyner possessed the drugs for herself or for others without Llanos' knowledge, finding that the only reasonable inference was that Llanos had knowledge and control over the contraband.

Hearsay statements by Joyner were ruled inadmissible.

The decision addresses a motion by iHealthOx Inc. and Terri Storey to set aside a default judgment obtained by Welch LLP for unpaid professional fees.

The court found that the defendants were validly served and that iHealthOx Inc. did not have an arguable defence on the merits, but that Ms. Storey had an arguable defence regarding her personal liability.

The default judgment was set aside as against Ms. Storey, conditional on payment of costs, but not as against iHealthOx Inc.

This decision concerns the sanction for contempt and the allocation of costs following findings that the defendants failed to comply with a court order (the "Turnover Order") in a complex commercial dispute.

The court awards full indemnity costs to the plaintiffs for the contempt motion, reduced by 25% due to Charter breaches, and substantial indemnity costs to the defendants for a successful Charter-based stay motion.

The court also addresses the principles of set-off and mutuality of debt in the context of competing costs awards.

This costs endorsement follows the granting of anti-SLAPP motions by the three defendants.

The court addresses the scale and quantum of costs, the issue of duplication between legal teams, and the entitlement of a self-represented litigant to costs.

The court awards full indemnity costs to the defendants, finding the requests fair and reasonable, and declines to award compensation to the self-represented defendant for his own time.

The defendants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the plaintiff from enforcing its mortgage security by way of power of sale, pending the resolution of their counterclaim alleging misrepresentation.

The court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried regarding alleged misrepresentation, the defendants failed to establish irreparable harm, as any losses could be compensated by damages.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed.

This supplementary judgment addresses the penalty for the husband's contempt of court, including the violation of a mareva injunction and preservation order, the issue of a stay pending appeal, costs, mathematical corrections, and further procedural matters.

The court imposes a 90-day custodial sentence, finds the husband acted in bad faith, and awards costs to the wife.

The judgment also addresses the husband's request for a stay, the process for varying the sentence if the husband purges his contempt, and the next steps in related proceedings.

The court granted an extension of an interim interlocutory and mandatory order restraining the transfer, access, and use of the internet domain "ditlabs.io" pending the outcome of the action.

The decision addresses the requirements for a Mareva injunction, including the presence of a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience.

The court found that KNNX Corp. had established a strong prima facie case that it was the rightful owner of the domain, that there was a risk of irreparable harm if the injunction was not extended, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The order was granted to preserve the status quo and prevent dissipation of the domain asset.

The plaintiffs, Muhammad and Naseem Farid, sued their former solicitor, Gerald Byron Brunt, for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of good faith, and breach of statutory duty after a failed real estate transaction.

The court found that the plaintiffs did not have the funds to close the transaction and that the defendant was not responsible for the failure.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' evidence as inconsistent and unsupported by documentary evidence, and found the expert evidence provided by the plaintiffs to be partial and unreliable.

The action was dismissed, and even if liability had been found, damages would have been limited to $1,400.

The decision addresses an application by Deren Akyeam-Pong to exclude evidence seized during a search of a Toronto hotel room, arguing that the search warrants were issued without sufficient grounds and that his rights under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter were breached.

The court reviews the adequacy of the Information to Obtain (ITO), the role of confidential informant privilege, and the sufficiency of judicial summaries of redacted material.

The court finds that the ITO, as supplemented by a judicial summary, provided sufficient credible and reliable evidence to support the issuance of the warrants.

The application is dismissed.

The court dismissed the applicant’s motion to set aside a previous order dismissing her claim for life insurance proceeds allegedly paid in violation of a separation agreement.

The decision addresses the availability of summary judgment in family law, the requirements for setting aside an order, and the jurisdictional boundaries between the Unified Family Court and the general Superior Court.

The court found no arguable defence on the merits and concluded that the Unified Family Court was not the proper forum for the applicant’s claim against the respondent.

The decision concerns a family law dispute regarding parenting time, decision-making, and child support for two children following the parents' separation.

The applicant father sought final orders for parenting time, child support, and related matters.

The respondent mother's pleadings were struck for repeated non-compliance with court orders, and the trial proceeded uncontested.

The court ordered regular parenting time for the father, maintained the mother as primary residence parent, and set child support and cost-sharing arrangements, declining to use enforcement mechanisms such as police enforcement or automatic residence change.

The plaintiff, Ari Lesser, brought a motion for a Norwich order compelling Change.org to produce subscriber information identifying the creator of a petition that allegedly defamed him.

The court reviewed the legal test for granting a Norwich order, including the necessity of the information, the relationship between the applicant and the third party, and the interests of justice.

The court found that all criteria were met and granted the order, allowing the plaintiff to obtain the requested information from Change.org.

The court granted Alexander Shifrin a declaration that he is a 15% shareholder in LDF Frozen Foods Inc., along with related relief, including rectification of the share register, production of corporate documents, and a direction for a trial on damages.

The decision turned on the credibility of the parties and the existence of an enforceable agreement for Shifrin’s investment and shareholding.

The court found that Shifrin had not been repaid his investment and was entitled to the shares, and that his claim was not statute-barred.

The decision concerns a failed real estate transaction in which the plaintiff, Anthony Gyimah, sought rescission and damages after refusing to close on a property purchase due to a dispute over the delivery of keys.

The court found that the plaintiff breached the agreement of purchase and sale (APS) by refusing to close, as the keys were made available for pickup in Cochrane and there was no contractual requirement for delivery to Toronto.

The court awarded the defendant Church damages of $219.61 and ordered repayment to the plaintiff of the balance of funds held in trust, with interest earned, totaling $70,142.23.

The case against the Church’s lawyer, Andre Lehoux, was dismissed.