SCJ 2025

The defendant brought a motion for summary dismissal under Rule 2.1.01, arguing that the plaintiff's claim for dependent's relief was frivolous and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff, a 37-year-old adult, sought support from her late father's estate based on his failure to provide financial assistance since childhood, relying on a 1998 child support order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the claim was not clearly frivolous on its face and that the plaintiff raised arguable legal issues under the broad dependent's relief provisions of the Succession Law Reform Act worthy of consideration by the court.

The applicant brought a motion to release the respondent's share of the net proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home to satisfy arrears of child support and to transfer the balance to the Family Responsibility Office to be held in trust for ongoing child support.

The respondent was non-responsive and had effectively disappeared.

The court ordered release of funds to satisfy arrears and transferred the balance to the FRO as a mechanism to secure payment of ongoing support obligations.

The court dismissed the request for lump-sum child support on motion, finding that such relief must be pursued through an application or motion to change to ensure proper notice to the respondent.

The defendants sought leave to file a jury notice almost four years after pleadings closed in a motor vehicle accident action.

The court applied the two-part test from Proper v. Nikore, examining both the circumstances of the delay and prejudice to the plaintiff.

The court found that the defendants failed to establish that the omission of the jury notice was inadvertent, rejecting the argument that industry practice in motor vehicle cases should be judicially noticed.

The court also found that the plaintiff would suffer prejudice if leave were granted, as litigation strategy had been shaped by the assumption of a judge-alone trial, and the mediation settlement positions had been informed by that assumption.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

The applicant, the mother of a severely disabled adult, sought appointment as guardian of property for her son who suffered a traumatic brain injury from a fall in 2014 when he was not yet seven years old.

The court found the son incapable of managing property based on a capacity assessment and appointed the mother as guardian.

The court determined that no less restrictive alternative was feasible given the son's significant cognitive limitations and that the mother's lifelong devotion to his care and detailed management plan made her an appropriate guardian.

A construction lien claimant brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement with homeowners who had failed to make payment by the agreed deadline.

The homeowners, initially represented by counsel but later self-represented, argued the settlement was not binding due to lack of voluntary and informed consent, fundamental mistake, and procedural unfairness at the settlement conference.

The court found that a binding settlement had been reached through objective evidence of mutual intention and agreement on all essential terms.

The homeowners were represented by counsel throughout negotiations and signed minutes of settlement twice without raising concerns.

The court rejected arguments regarding lack of informed consent, ineffective representation, and procedural unfairness, finding no compelling circumstances warranting non-enforcement.

Judgment was granted in accordance with the settlement terms.

Brandon Sero and Marie Miller were charged with drug trafficking offences following a search warrant executed on February 8, 2024.

Sero brought a Charter application under section 24(2) to exclude evidence seized during the search, arguing the warrant was invalid due to breaches of section 8 rights.

The applicant challenged the validity of the warrant, claiming the Information to Obtain failed to disclose reasonable and probable grounds and that confidential source information was insufficiently credible, compelling, and corroborated.

The court found the warrant was valid despite material omissions from the ITO regarding the background and credentials of confidential sources.

The court applied the Garofoli process to manage disclosure while protecting informer privilege and ultimately dismissed the Charter application, finding the evidence admissible under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellants appealed a peace bond order issued under section 810 of the Criminal Code requiring them to enter into a recognizance.

The respondent had alleged the appellants engaged in various unlawful acts threatening his family's safety and property, including leaving fires unattended, cutting trees, building an illegal dock, burying garbage, setting up a shooting range, and carrying weapons in a threatening manner.

The appellants denied these allegations.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal and quashed the peace bond, finding that the justice of the peace's reasons were insufficient for meaningful appellate review.

The justice of the peace failed to explain why she preferred the respondent's evidence over the appellants' evidence on key disputed points, particularly regarding the nature and dangerousness of the appellants' conduct.

The court addressed a motion to interpret an order made on September 9, 2025, regarding the preservation of funds in trust accounts.

The plaintiff sought clarification on whether the order required the defendants to deposit additional funds into trust or merely maintain funds already held in trust.

The court also addressed whether the order applied to all defendants or only the Mayfield defendants.

The court held that the order requires maintenance of funds already in trust, not the deposit of new funds, and that the order applies only to the Mayfield defendants, not the Gandhi defendants.

The applicant, a separated spouse, sought to set aside the will of the deceased testator on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and to obtain custody of the deceased's cremated remains.

The applicant alleged the testator suffered from Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome and lacked capacity to execute the will dated October 24, 2023.

The court found that the will met all requirements for due execution and that the applicant failed to provide evidence of suspicious circumstances sufficient to rebut the presumption of validity.

The application was dismissed, the will was declared valid, and the disposition of the remains was entrusted to the executor.

The respondent obtained a successful motion for a parenting order regarding three children of a marriage in Switzerland and sought substantial costs of $9,772.24.

The applicant opposed the costs award, arguing no costs should be awarded or alternatively that costs should not exceed 40% on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the respondent was the successful party overall despite some issues being decided in the applicant's favour, and awarded costs of $6,000 including disbursements and HST, applying the proportionality principle and considering all factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The accused was charged with 14 counts of sexual offences and assault involving three complainants: his biological daughter M.B., his stepdaughter R.B., and a childhood friend of M.B., S.C. The trial involved allegations spanning from 2007 to 2020.

The court found the accused guilty on 10 counts involving M.B. and R.B., including sexual interference, sexual assault, incest, invitation to sexual touching, assault, and uttering threats.

The court acquitted the accused on 4 counts involving S.C., finding irreconcilable inconsistencies between the evidence of S.C. and M.B. regarding the incidents alleged.

The court found M.B. to be credible and reliable on the allegations involving M.B. and R.B., but found the contradictions between S.C. and M.B.'s accounts of the incidents involving S.C. to be material and unresolvable, preventing the Crown from meeting the beyond reasonable doubt standard on those counts.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 48.14(5) to extend the time to set an action down for trial.

The action, commenced in 2017 for injuries allegedly sustained when struck by falling concrete, had not been set down for trial by the eighth anniversary of commencement.

The court dismissed the motion and the action for delay, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay and failed to demonstrate that the defendants would not suffer non-compensable prejudice.

The primary cause of delay was the plaintiff's failure to produce relevant documents and answer outstanding undertakings.

Despite multiple accommodations from the defendants and efforts by current counsel to obtain compliance, the plaintiff failed to cooperate adequately or demonstrate an intention to pursue the action.

The applicants sought court review of legal fees claimed by six lawyers (the Legal Team) who represented the Robinson Huron Treaty Litigation Fund in litigation to enforce the Crown's obligations under the Robinson Huron Treaty of 1850.

The Legal Team claimed $510 million as a 5% contingent success fee on a $10 billion settlement.

The court found the Partial Contingency Fee Agreement was neither fair when signed nor reasonable at the time of hearing.

The court determined the Legal Team acted in conflict of interest when advising clients on their own fees and failed to ensure clients received independent legal advice.

The court assessed the fair and reasonable value of the Legal Team's services at approximately $40 million (double their billable fees of $23 million plus $6.5 million in disbursements already paid), rejecting the $510 million claim as champertous and disproportionate to the settlement amount.

The applicant brought a summary judgment motion seeking enforcement of an accepted offer to settle dated July 15, 2022, which the respondent Kevin Niessen accepted on September 8, 2023.

The offer included an equalization payment of $950,000 to be satisfied through transfer of property.

The respondent failed to pay the equalization payment within the required 90-day period.

The applicant also sought declarations regarding beneficial ownership of properties and enforcement of the equalization payment against properties owned by Rita Niessen and 20 Valley Communities Inc. The court found that the respondent had engaged in a pattern of asset transfers and encumbrances to avoid satisfying the equalization payment, including fraudulent transfer of jointly-owned property.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the applicant, enforcing the settlement terms and declaring the respondent to be the beneficial owner of the disputed properties.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon and unlawful confinement arising from an October 2022 incident.

The Crown's case relied on video evidence and testimony from a co-accused who had pleaded guilty.

During trial, the Crown's key witness expressed repeated safety concerns and refused to answer questions about who recorded the videos, citing fears for his and his family's safety.

The accused brought a mistrial application, arguing that the jury would speculate that the accused or someone connected to him was the source of the witness's fears, and that the jury would infer the accused was the videographer based on the witness's reluctance to answer.

The trial judge dismissed the mistrial application, finding that a mid-trial instruction and final jury charge adequately remedied any prejudice.

The jury subsequently convicted the accused of assault with a weapon and acquitted on unlawful confinement.

The court dismissed an application brought by a self-represented applicant against the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario as frivolous and vexatious.

The applicant sought a non-punitive tort award of $150,000,000, alleging he was placed in a false light, suffered privacy invasion, faced wrongful criminal charges, and was imprisoned.

The court found the application lacked legal basis and legal merit.

While the applicant had been charged with criminal offences including theft of a motor vehicle and possession of stolen property, the charges were withdrawn following his successful completion of a mental health program.

The court determined the application did not allege the essential elements of malicious prosecution and could not identify any other legal basis for the proceeding.

This costs decision follows the court's substantive orders of September 23, 2025 (2025 ONSC 4703).

The applicants sought $65,000 in costs based on a legal bill of $115,110.

Steven Jackson and 2131376 Ontario Ltd. sought $58,407 based on a legal bill of $93,185.

Peter Jackson claimed $21,719 based on a legal bill of $33,014.

The court found that the applicants' allegations of domestic abuse and misappropriation, which failed to be proven, escalated the litigation.

The court awarded costs to Peter Jackson in the amount of $21,719.44 on a partial indemnity scale, payable by the applicants.

No costs were awarded as between the applicants and Steven Jackson and 2131376 Ontario Ltd.

The applicant sought to discharge a claim for lien registered by the respondent on September 11, 2025, in the amount of $63,740 for roofing work.

The respondent claimed the lien was for work performed on August 16, 2025, to correct deficiencies and secure the manufacturer's warranty.

The court found that the cost of correction was approximately $580, which fell below the threshold for deemed completion under the Construction Act (1% of contract price or $5,000, whichever is less).

Since the correction costs were only $580 against a contract price of $198,000 (1% threshold of $1,980), the contract was deemed completed and the lien was out of time.

The claim for lien was discharged.

The accused was convicted by jury of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, administering a stupefying drug to facilitate sexual interference, sexual assault, attempt voyeurism, and possession of stolen medication from two hospitals.

The offences involved two stepdaughters over a four-year period.

The court imposed a total sentence of 7 years 2 months, with ancillary orders including prohibition from contacting victims, section 161 restrictions for 20 years, lifetime SOIRA registration, DNA order, and 10-year firearms prohibition.

The plaintiff sought to set aside a Registrar's dismissal order dated October 10, 2024, which dismissed the action for delay.

The action arose from a failed agreement of purchase and sale for a property.

The plaintiff alleged breach of contract and sought damages against the defendants.

The court applied the Reid factors test and found that the plaintiff failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the substantial litigation delay spanning over six years.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the principle of finality outweighed the interest in having the action decided on its merits, particularly given the inordinate delay without adequate explanation.