SCJ 2025

The plaintiff, Giuseppina Mari, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, Mujeeb Sanjer and Genan Zamt, following a failed real estate transaction.

The court considered whether the original or amended agreement of purchase and sale should be used to assess damages, whether the plaintiff mitigated her damages, and what additional damages were recoverable.

The court held that the original agreement applied, awarded damages based on the difference between the original sale price and the ultimate resale price, and allowed certain additional costs.

The court also found that the plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to mitigate her losses.

The decision addresses a motion by the applicant, Manoravy Thillainathan, to amend his Notice of Application and file supplementary affidavits in a proceeding against the Hindu Temple Society of Canada (HTSC).

The HTSC opposed and brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application as moot.

The court reviews the procedural history, the parties' positions, and the admissibility of new evidence.

The court finds that the challenge to the 2021 election is now moot, declines to allow amendments to add a monitor or challenge the 2023 election, and refuses to admit the new affidavits at this stage.

The application is discontinued as against the 26 named former directors and officers, and only the HTSC remains as respondent.

The plaintiff, Allan Mann, sued his former criminal defence lawyers, Edward H. Royle and James Miglin, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and related wrongs arising from their representation in his criminal proceedings.

The defendants moved to strike the claim as an abuse of process and for failing to disclose a cause of action.

The court granted the motion, holding that such a claim constitutes an improper collateral attack on the criminal conviction and sentence, which were never appealed.

The action was dismissed without leave to amend, and costs were awarded to the defendants.

The court considered whether to exercise its discretion to grant pre-charge Charter relief in the form of a declaration that the seizure of items by police during a criminal investigation was in violation of section 8 of the Charter.

The Applicants, Eastway Tank Pump and Meter Ltd. and Neil Greene, had not been charged with a criminal offence but were under investigation following a fatal explosion.

The court reviewed the factual background, the parties' positions, and relevant case law on the availability of certiorari and declaratory relief prior to the laying of charges.

Ultimately, the court declined to exercise its discretion to grant the relief at this stage, finding the Charter issues best left to the trial judge, but left open the possibility of renewal if charges are not laid within a reasonable time and further evidence of reputational harm is provided.

The court denied the defendants' motion to adjourn a scheduled trial pending the outcome of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) application.

The court found that the defendants delayed bringing the application and that the interests of justice, including the plaintiff's need for timely resolution and access to treatment, outweighed the defendants' arguments.

The court ordered the trial to proceed as scheduled and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

Ricardo Gomez, a Toronto Police Service officer, pleaded guilty to breach of trust for providing confidential information to a member of the public.

The court imposed a six-month conditional sentence, declining probation or a discharge.

The decision details the facts, Gomez’s background, letters of support, and the legal framework for sentencing, including aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court emphasized the seriousness of breach of trust by police officers and the need for denunciation and deterrence, finding a discharge contrary to the public interest.

The court granted the applicant's motion to strike the respondent's pleadings under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules due to repeated breaches of court orders, failure to pay costs, and ongoing inappropriate conduct.

The respondent was precluded from participating further in the proceedings, and the matter was set down for an uncontested trial.

The court found the respondent's allegations of judicial bias to be without merit and determined that all lesser remedies had been exhausted.

The appellant, Scott Hockaday, appealed his conviction on two counts of mischief related to his participation in the 2022 Ottawa "Freedom Convoy" protest.

The court reviewed the lawfulness of his arrest, the admissibility of evidence obtained as a result, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding his intent.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court finding that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds, the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error, and the evidence supported the conviction.

This decision addresses whether Cushman & Wakefield ULC (C&W), as real estate broker, is entitled to a commission in respect of Stelco’s purchase of the Stakeholders’ limited partnership units and other equity in the Legacy Lands LP, under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings.

The court finds that C&W is not entitled to a commission, as the relevant brokerage agreements had expired or were never executed for the properties in question, and the transaction at issue was not contemplated by the commission provisions.

The court also dismisses C&W’s alternative claim for unjust enrichment.

The Town of Caledon sought a declaration that the respondents failed to comply with a consent order requiring removal of structures, trucks, trailers, and equipment from their property.

The respondents argued substantial compliance and requested more time.

The court interpreted the order as requiring removal of all such items, not just those associated with a transportation depot, and found the respondents in breach.

The respondents were given 60 days to comply, after which the Town may remove the items at the respondents’ expense.

The plaintiff, Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC), brought a debt collection action against Winston Ang in Halton Region.

The court found no logical connection to Halton Region and, following the precedent in The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. The Other End Inc. et al., 2025 ONSC 85, ordered the matter transferred to Toronto Region.

The motion for summary judgment was adjourned sine die, and a related 2023 action against Mr. Ang was dismissed without costs and without prejudice.

The court granted a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter after finding that the delay in bringing Christopher Vaughan to trial, while technically under the 30-month ceiling set by R. v. Jordan, was markedly longer than it reasonably should have been.

The delay was caused by a major disclosure failure by the Crown and chronic institutional delays in Brampton, as well as the Crown’s decision to prefer a direct indictment, which further prolonged the proceedings.

The court found that the Applicant had acted reasonably throughout and that the Crown was responsible for the delay.

The indictment was stayed.

This endorsement grants initial relief under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to Synaptive Medical Inc., a Toronto-based medical device company facing a liquidity crisis and insolvency.

The court finds Synaptive to be a “debtor company” under the CCAA, appoints Richter Inc. as Monitor, approves a stay of proceedings, authorizes DIP financing with Export Development Canada, and grants administration, DIP lender, and directors’ charges.

The decision reviews the statutory and case law criteria for CCAA relief, including the expanded concept of insolvency and the requirements for interim financing and related charges.

The court considered whether damage to Mr. Hood’s seasonal cabin was caused by an insured peril (windstorm) or by settling, which was excluded under the insurance policy.

After reviewing expert evidence and witness affidavits, the court found that a windstorm was the direct cause of the loss and that the exclusion for settling did not apply.

The court declared the loss covered under the policy.

The plaintiff, Arc Compute, sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants—two former senior employees and their new company—from retaining or disclosing confidential information, competing with the plaintiff, and interfering with its client and employee relationships.

The court found that the defendants, as fiduciaries, breached both contractual and common law duties by retaining confidential information and soliciting clients and employees for their competing business.

The court granted a modified injunction, requiring the return of all confidential information, the shutdown of the competing company, and a six-month worldwide non-competition order.

This decision concerns a dispute over millions of dollars lent to Trip Support Inc., a failed “Book Now, Pay Later” airline ticket financing business.

The plaintiffs sought a contempt order for the defendants’ failure to disclose assets as required by a Mareva injunction, while the defendants moved to set aside the injunction for inadequate disclosure by the plaintiffs.

The court found the defendants in contempt for failing to disclose Spanish property, but also set aside the Mareva injunction due to the plaintiffs’ significant omissions in their ex parte motion materials.

The decision addresses the standards for contempt and the duty of full and frank disclosure in urgent injunction proceedings.