SCJ 2025

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

This decision addresses whether a person who was formerly married and divorced (including by foreign divorce) can apply for spousal support under Ontario’s Family Law Act.

The court finds that a divorce, whether foreign or domestic, does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to order spousal support under the Family Law Act.

The decision reviews and departs from prior appellate authority, relying on statutory interpretation, legislative purpose, and recent appellate commentary suggesting the law is “ripe for reconsideration.” The court also addresses the alternative basis for support where the parties resumed cohabitation after the foreign divorce.

The court considered whether the Receiver could disclaim an agreement of purchase and sale for a condominium unit, where the purchaser (Berry) claimed entitlement to specific performance and an equitable interest in the unit.

The Receiver, supported by the senior secured creditor, sought to maximize recovery for creditors.

The court found that Berry had not paid the full purchase price, that the supplementary and "as is, where is" agreements were not enforceable, and that the equities did not support a preference for Berry over other creditors.

The Receiver was authorized to disclaim the agreements.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action against two defendants as an abuse of process, finding it to be a collateral attack on a prior Small Claims Court proceeding regarding the enforceability of a settlement agreement.

The court held that the plaintiff's claim was a pre-emptive collateral attack and that allowing it to proceed would force the defendants to fight a "two-front war." The court also addressed the status of the claim against a third defendant, Dixon, and clarified the application of Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court sentenced Mwanza Serge Mutombo for aggravated assault after a guilty plea.

The facts involved a vicious, unprovoked attack on a vulnerable, homeless victim, resulting in severe injuries.

The court considered aggravating factors such as Mutombo’s significant criminal record, the use of a weapon, and the vulnerability of the victim, as well as mitigating factors including his guilty plea, disadvantaged background, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court reviewed relevant case law and sentencing ranges, ultimately imposing a nine-year sentence, less pretrial custody credit, and making ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal and a motion for contempt against Susan Stevens for breaching court orders related to the disposition of a recreational vehicle (RV) subject to a Mareva injunction.

The court found that the orders were clear and unequivocal, that Ms. Stevens had actual knowledge of them, and that she intentionally breached them by selling the RV.

The court found Ms. Stevens in contempt, ordered her to provide documentation and pay over the proceeds, and adjourned the penalty phase to allow her an opportunity to purge her contempt.

The applicants sought enforcement in Ontario of an English court order appointing them as deputies for Marija Jurate Danilunas, or alternatively, appointment as guardians under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.

The court reviewed the evidentiary and legal requirements for recognition of foreign capacity orders, noting the lack of medical evidence and the absence of a statutory regime for automatic recognition of such orders from England.

The court raised several questions regarding the appropriate legal test for recognition of foreign in rem capacity orders, the role of public policy, and the need for further submissions from the parties and potentially interested intervenors.

No final order was made, and the matter was set for further case management.

The court considered costs following summary judgment in a real estate transaction dispute.

The plaintiff was awarded $256,208.54 plus pre-judgment interest.

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity basis, while the defendants argued the costs were excessive.

The court reviewed the relevant statutory and common law principles, including proportionality and indemnity, and fixed costs at $15,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff.

The court considered competing motions regarding possession of a commercial property and the discharge of a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) in the context of a mortgage default.

The Plaintiff, a holding company, sought to set aside an ex parte order granting the CPL and to be declared in possession of the property.

The Defendant argued an oral agreement allowed indefinite interest-only payments and challenged the Plaintiff’s right to possession.

The court found the Defendant failed to make full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion, that the Plaintiff was entitled to possession under the mortgage and the Mortgages Act, and that the CPL should be vacated.

The Plaintiff’s motion was granted and the Defendant’s dismissed.

The decision concerns an application by Sherif Gerges Pharmacy Professional Corporation and Sherif Gerges for the appointment of an inspector under the Ontario Business Corporations Act to investigate the business and financial affairs of Seva Drug Mart Inc. and Eglinton Drugs Inc., as well as for leave to bring derivative actions on behalf of those corporations and Woodbine Downs Healthcare Realty Inc. The court granted the appointment of an inspector and leave to bring the proposed actions, rejecting the respondents' arguments that arbitration provisions applied and that certain claims were statute-barred.

The court also addressed the allocation of costs for the investigation and the proposed actions.

This decision concerns a construction lien action that settled before trial.

The plaintiffs, trustees and agents for union members, registered a lien and commenced an action against the contractor and property owner.

After the underlying debt was paid, the property owner (Con-Form Holdings Limited) sought costs from the plaintiffs, arguing the lien was untimely and exaggerated.

The court dismissed Con-Form’s claim for costs, finding the plaintiffs’ actions were justified by the contractor’s default and that the validity and amount of the lien were never adjudicated.

The court ordered Con-Form to pay the plaintiffs $1,000 in costs for responding to the costs submissions.

This ruling addresses the Crown’s application for the complainant to testify via CCTV in a sexual assault and assault by choking prosecution.

The court grants the application, finding that the complainant’s concerns about testifying in the presence of the accused and before a jury are reasonably held and that testifying via CCTV will facilitate a full and candid account of her evidence.

The decision reviews the legislative amendments to section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code, clarifies that necessity is no longer the standard, and emphasizes the importance of balancing the interests of the complainant and the accused’s right to a fair trial.

The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ action as statute-barred under the 15-year ultimate limitation period in the Limitation Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs, Bruce G. Johnston and Judith A. Walker, claimed wrongful expulsion from their union and denial of full pension benefits.

The court found that all material facts were known or discoverable by 1994/95, and the ultimate limitation period had expired long before the action was commenced in 2021.

The court also rejected arguments based on concealment, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and the expulsion being void ab initio.

This decision addresses a motion for summary judgment brought by three defendants seeking indemnification from Luc Corbeil and the Corbeil Family Trust in relation to a loan and indemnity agreement.

The court found that the moving parties did not provide the personal guarantees required to trigger the indemnity, and that the Corbeil Family Trust was not a party to the relevant agreements.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the responding parties.

This is a medical malpractice action in which the plaintiff, Kathleen Joanne O’Brien, alleged negligent treatment by the defendant, Dr. Jasjit Lochab, an orthopaedic surgeon, following a hip fracture and subsequent surgery in December 2018.

The parties agreed on damages, leaving liability as the sole issue.

The court found that Dr. Lochab met the standard of care in his choice and use of implant, as well as in his post-operative instructions.

The action was dismissed, with costs awarded to the defendant.

The court considered two motions: the plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the trial list and the defendant’s motion to dismiss for delay.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable explanation for significant periods of delay and failed to demonstrate that the defendant would suffer no non-compensable prejudice if the action proceeded.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s motion to restore and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for delay, awarding costs to the defendant.