SCJ 2026

This decision addresses the continuation of the parties' motions regarding interim parenting arrangements for their young child.

The mother sought a varied schedule and blanket consent for travel, while the father sought significantly expanded parenting time.

The court found the father's proposal overly ambitious and the mother's unduly cautious.

Balancing the child's need for stability with the benefit of increased time with the father, the court ordered an alternating weekend schedule with additional mid-week time for the father when he is in the London area.

The mother was also granted permission to travel with the child to visit family in Michigan without the father's consent, subject to reasonable notice.

Exchange locations were established to balance the transportation burden.

The self-represented bankrupt sought an absolute discharge from bankruptcy.

The Trustee and the OSB opposed the discharge, citing the bankrupt's failure to disclose significant assets lost to romance scams and extravagant spending prior to bankruptcy.

The Court found several section 173 facts proven but concluded a refusal of discharge was too severe.

The Court granted a discharge suspended for 22 months, recognizing the bankrupt was a victim of fraud and did not intentionally evade her bankruptcy duties.

The applicant bank brought a motion to appoint an interim receiver over the respondent companies' assets pursuant to section 47(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The companies had defaulted on their obligations under a master purchase and servicing agreement, failed to secure refinancing, and admitted to transferring funds from a blocked trust account following a fraudulent cheque incident.

The court found that the appointment of an interim receiver was necessary to protect the debtor's estate and the interests of the bank, and granted the motion with limited scope to preserve assets pending further resolution.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent for leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation action under the Securities Act against KPMG and for certification as a class proceeding for settlement purposes.

The court found the statutory criteria satisfied and granted the order, approving the class definition, representative plaintiff, common issue, and the form and dissemination of the notices to class members regarding the settlement hearing and opt-out process.

The plaintiffs and defendants brought cross-motions for undertakings and refusals arising from examinations for discovery in an action for breach of a rental income guarantee program.

The court ordered the individual defendants to serve further and better affidavits of documents, including searches of relevant email addresses and phone numbers.

The court also ruled on numerous specific refusals from the examinations of several witnesses, applying principles of relevance and proportionality, and upholding claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege where appropriate.

The applicant, convicted of first-degree murder in 2008 for an offence committed in 2004, brought a threshold screening application under the faint hope clause to reduce his parole ineligibility period.

The court applied the pre-2011 standard of 'reasonable prospect of success' based on the date of the offence.

Considering the applicant's positive institutional conduct, low risk of violent recidivism, and sincere remorse, the court found a reasonable prospect that a jury would reduce his parole ineligibility and ordered a jury to be empaneled.

Following a trial decision, the respondent raised arithmetic errors regarding the treatment of a joint line of credit and mortgage.

The court agreed that an adjustment was required for a post-valuation date mortgage payment, reducing the equalization payment owed to the applicant.

On the issue of costs, the court found that the respondent had engaged in bad faith and unreasonable behaviour throughout the litigation, including failing to comply with court orders and acting abusively.

The court awarded the applicant full indemnity costs, offset by a modest costs award to the self-represented respondent for his partial success on the post-trial corrections.

Following a trial where the defendant lawyer was ordered to return the plaintiffs' $35,000 deposit, the court determined the quantum of expenses and costs.

The court found the defendant engaged in unreasonable behaviour by misleading the court, failing to produce crucial documents, and hiding the improper release of the deposit.

The plaintiffs were awarded $5,795.50 for legal expenses incurred to recover the deposit, plus $7,500 in costs (including a penalty for unreasonable behaviour) and $416 in disbursements.

The plaintiffs paid a $35,000 deposit into the trust account of the defendant lawyer, who was acting for the vendors in a proposed asset purchase agreement.

The lawyer released the funds to his clients and kept $3,000 for himself before the agreement was even signed, and hid this fact for three years.

The court allowed the self-represented plaintiffs to amend their claim mid-trial due to the lawyer's late disclosure of documents.

The court found the lawyer was willfully blind to his clients' fraudulent scheme and breached his trust obligations to the non-client plaintiffs.

The lawyer was ordered to repay the $35,000 deposit plus up to $15,000 in legal expenses incurred by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff, a foreign-trained lawyer, was hired as a law clerk subject to a three-month probationary period.

He was dismissed without cause or notice after only 10 days of employment.

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal.

The court found that the employer failed to provide the plaintiff with a fair and reasonable opportunity to demonstrate his suitability for the position, as required by common law for probationary employees.

The court awarded the plaintiff three months' pay in lieu of notice, noting his short service, age, and the time it took to find alternative employment.

Claims for mental distress and punitive damages were dismissed.

Aviva Insurance Company of Canada brought a motion to strike the plaintiff towing company's claim against it for vehicle storage fees.

Aviva had denied coverage to its insured, the co-defendant, due to her failure to cooperate and potential breach of statutory conditions regarding an unauthorized driver.

The towing company argued Aviva's negotiations regarding storage fees created an estoppel.

The court found no privity of contract between the towing company and the insurer, and held that the insurer's efforts to minimize damages did not constitute waiver or estoppel.

The claim against Aviva was struck and the action dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for amounts owing under a Merchant Cash Advance Agreement.

The court found that the agreement was in substance a loan, not a purchase of future receivables, because the plaintiff shifted the risk of fluctuating sales entirely to the merchant by charging a fixed weekly amount.

The court held that the 42% APR did not violate the criminal rate of interest provisions of the Criminal Code, but applied the Interest Act to reduce the interest rate to 5% per annum because no annual rate was expressed.

The court also found the liquidated damages and monitoring fees to be unenforceable penalties.

Judgment was granted for the balance of the principal plus 5% interest and NSF fees, and the personal guarantee was upheld.

The plaintiff's vehicle was stolen and he submitted a claim to his insurer.

The insurer initially declared the vehicle a total loss, prompting the plaintiff to purchase a replacement vehicle.

When the stolen vehicle was recovered weeks later, the insurer reversed its decision and elected to repair it, relying on section 8.6(6) of the OAP 1.

The court found that the insurer breached the insurance contract by failing to make its election to repair within the required seven days of the proof of loss.

The court also found the insurer breached its duty of good faith by misleading the plaintiff and failing to communicate promptly.

The plaintiff was awarded $22,894.31 in damages, representing the cash value of the vehicle at the time of loss less the salvage sale price, plus storage costs.

The defendant insurer brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim regarding a stolen vehicle as statute-barred.

The plaintiff's vehicle was allegedly stolen in October 2023, and the insurer denied coverage in December 2023, advising of the one-year limitation period.

The plaintiff did not commence the action until May 2025.

The court found the action was commenced beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed by the Insurance Act and dismissed the claim under Rule 12.02(1).

The plaintiff brought a motion in Small Claims Court seeking an extensive disclosure order requiring the defendants to produce various supplier and fabricator invoices related to a home renovation project.

The plaintiff alleged overbilling by the defendants.

The Deputy Judge dismissed the motion, finding that the Small Claims Court has no jurisdiction to order general discovery or production of documents on a motion.

Such an order can only be made by a settlement conference judge under Rule 13.05(2)(a)(vi) of the Rules of the Small Claims Court.

The plaintiff, a former landlord, brought an action in Small Claims Court against former tenants for unpaid utility charges.

The defendants were noted in default, and the matter proceeded to an assessment hearing.

The court dismissed the action, finding that it lacked jurisdiction.

Under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, the Landlord and Tenant Board has exclusive jurisdiction over claims against former tenants for unpaid utilities.

The plaintiff commenced a Small Claims Court action against a real estate brokerage for unpaid commissions.

The plaintiff had previously brought an action against the team leader and another team member regarding the same commissions under a cooperation agreement, which was dismissed after a trial.

The court found that the current action was an attempt to re-litigate the same issues.

The action was dismissed on the basis of issue estoppel, cause of action estoppel, and abuse of process, as the plaintiff should have added the brokerage as a defendant in the first action or consolidated the two proceedings.

The plaintiff auto repair facility claimed $9,898.80 in storage fees from the defendant insurer after a customer's vehicle was towed to its premises and remained there for 73 days.

The defendant refused to pay, arguing the plaintiff was not certified to provide vehicle storage services under the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021 (TSSEA).

The Small Claims Court dismissed the claim, finding that by receiving and holding a towed vehicle, the plaintiff provided vehicle storage services within the meaning of the TSSEA.

Because the plaintiff sought to charge a fee for these services, it was not exempt from the TSSEA and was prohibited from charging or collecting storage fees without holding a vehicle storage certificate.

The plaintiff, a patron of an adult entertainment club, transferred $13,425 to the defendant, a dancer at the club, over five separate deposits.

The plaintiff claimed the transfers were loans, while the defendant argued they were gifts.

The court applied the principle that money transferred between romantic partners is presumed to be a loan, placing the burden on the recipient to prove it was a gift.

Finding that the defendant failed to meet this burden, the court concluded the transfers were loans and ordered the defendant to repay the full amount.

The plaintiffs, two long-standing members of a scouting organization, brought defamation actions against the defendant, a former director who was removed from his position.

Following his removal, the defendant engaged in a campaign of sending emails and a formal complaint to third parties, falsely accusing the plaintiffs of illegal conduct, bullying, and failing to investigate child abuse.

The court found the statements were defamatory and rejected the defences of justification, qualified privilege, and fair comment, noting the defendant was motivated by malice and a desire for retribution.

The court awarded $35,000 in damages to one plaintiff and $20,000 to the other.