Superior Court of Justice

The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their statement of claim in a medical malpractice action to substitute three specific physicians for 'Jane Doe' defendants, arguing misnomer, or alternatively, special circumstances.

The court found that misnomer did not apply as the 'litigation finger' was not pointing clearly at the proposed defendants, but rather the pleadings were vague and could apply to almost any medical staff member.

However, the court granted leave to add the proposed defendants under the doctrine of special circumstances, leaving the final determination of the limitation defence to the trial judge due to conflicting evidence on the plaintiffs' diligence.

During a jury trial for sexual offences, the 16-year-old complainant was unable to continue her testimony after a recess on the second day of cross-examination.

The Crown applied to continue the trial, while the defendant applied for a directed verdict of acquittal or a mistrial.

Applying the framework from R. v. Hart, the court found that the incomplete cross-examination had little impact on the jury's ability to assess the evidence, as the cross-examination was near completion and the defendant had already explored most areas of impeachment.

The court held that any prejudice could be remedied by allowing defence counsel to present the planned confrontation using prior statements and by providing a specific jury instruction.

The Crown's application was granted and the defendant's application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with uttering threats, criminal harassment, and firearms offences arising from arguments with his then intimate partner.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the complainant's testimony.

The court found the accused to be a credible and reliable witness whose evidence raised a reasonable doubt.

Conversely, the court found the complainant was not credible, noting she lied under oath about wanting to meet the accused after his arrest, swore a misleading affidavit in family proceedings, and gave evidence inconsistent with her 911 call.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The mother brought a motion to change seeking retroactive child support and contributions to section 7 expenses.

The father opposed and sought to terminate support for the eldest child.

The court determined the parties' incomes, finding the father failed to prove entitlement to deduct employment expenses.

Retroactive child support was ordered.

The court reviewed years of claimed section 7 expenses, allowing legitimate educational, health, and extracurricular costs while denying personal vehicle expenses.

Ongoing child support was adjusted to reflect the adult children residing away from home for university studies.

The accused was charged with causing an explosion at an automotive assembly plant following his vocal opposition to the employer's COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on a device found at the scene and statements made by the accused to co-workers.

The court found significant evidentiary gaps regarding the device's capacity to cause the explosion and concluded that the accused's statements could reasonably be inferred as attempts to gain social standing rather than admissions of guilt.

Applying the Villaroman framework for circumstantial evidence, the court held that the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The applicant, Kamal Ford, brought a Charter application challenging the validity of search warrants executed at his residence and on his vehicle, and alleging a breach of his s. 10(b) right to counsel.

The court found that the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained misleading statements that required excision.

After excision, the court held there were reasonable grounds to search the residence for clothing and phones, but not for a firearm, and no reasonable grounds to search the vehicle.

The court found no breach of the right to counsel, as a 20-minute delay in facilitating a call was reasonable due to transport logistics.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court excluded the evidence seized from the vehicle but admitted the evidence seized from the residence and during the lawful search incident to arrest.

The applicant father sought sole decision-making responsibility for the parties' two children after the respondent mother unlawfully retained them in India.

The mother had previously been found in contempt of court for violating a prior order and had engaged in a campaign to terminate the children's relationship with the father.

The court found that the mother's actions, including forum shopping and abandoning the Ontario proceedings, were contrary to the children's safety, security, and well-being.

The court granted the father sole decision-making responsibility and ordered that any parenting time for the mother be at his sole discretion.

Following a passing of accounts application where the respondent beneficiary raised over 150 unsuccessful objections, the applicant estate trustee sought costs against the respondent personally on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that while the respondent's objections were not reasonably necessary for the proper administration of the estate, the applicant's offer to settle lacked any real compromise.

The court ordered the respondent to personally pay $12,500 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, representing the legal fees incurred in response to his objections, with the remaining $39,710.88 payable from the estate.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended his evidence that his ejaculation inside the complainant was unintentional.

The complainant had consented to unprotected vaginal intercourse on the strict condition that the appellant not ejaculate inside her.

The trial judge found the appellant was aware of this boundary, intentionally disregarded it, and was in complete control when he ejaculated.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence and holding that the trial judge's rejection of the appellant's account was reasonably supported by the record.

The accused, having been convicted of sexual assault, was subject to a Crown application for a dangerous offender assessment.

The defence sought to retain a forensic psychiatrist to conduct a separate assessment, but the expert refused to work at the standard Legal Aid rate of $200 per hour, requiring $400 per hour.

The defence brought a Fisher/Peterman application for state funding at the enhanced rate.

The court granted the application, finding that requiring the accused to exhaust Legal Aid appeals or find another expert would cause undue delay and compromise his right to a fair trial, particularly given his lengthy pre-sentence custody and the disparity between Legal Aid rates and Crown expert rates.

At a Trial Management Conference, the self-represented applicant sought an order to present her evidence in chief and that of most of her witnesses by affidavit.

The court denied the request, noting significant problems with affidavit evidence in chief, particularly when one party is self-represented.

The court highlighted concerns regarding impeachment, the inclusion of inadmissible evidence, the disruption of proper trial order, the tendency for affidavits to include irrelevant information, and the inability of the trial judge to properly assess credibility.

The applicant father brought a motion to stay the respondent mother's motion to change a final order, arguing that the disputes should be referred to arbitration pursuant to the order's arbitration clauses.

The named arbitrator had declined to act, and a replacement arbitrator retired before issuing an award.

The court found that while the arbitration clauses were operative and it had jurisdiction to appoint a substitute arbitrator under the Arbitration Act, 1991, it declined to exercise that discretion.

The court cited the high conflict nature of the case, the lack of a willing replacement, and the inefficiency of parallel proceedings.

The motion was dismissed, and the issues were directed to proceed in court.

The offender pled guilty to procuring sexual services and obtaining a material benefit from the commission of an offence.

The offences occurred over a two-year period while the offender and the victim were in an intimate relationship and had a child together.

The court considered the aggravating factors, including the victim's youth and the offender's encouragement of her to work while pregnant, alongside mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, lack of a prior record, and the nine-year gap since the offences during which the offender lived pro-socially.

The court sentenced the offender to time served (one day in custody) after applying 557 days of pre-trial and bail credit, emphasizing the principle of restraint and the needs of the offender's child and elderly parents.

The respondents brought a Rule 21 motion to dismiss the applicant's application to rectify the parcel register and discharge a charge against his property, arguing the application disclosed no cause of action and was statute-barred.

The court held that Rule 21.01(1)(a) does not apply to applications, and the limitations issue involved mixed fact and law.

While Rule 21.01(1)(b) applies to applications via Rule 14.09, the court found the Notice of Application disclosed a valid cause of action for civil fraud against the moving parties.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendants were successful on a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim without leave to amend.

They sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale in the amount of $121,591.68, or alternatively on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $81,625.84.

The plaintiff argued for a reduced quantum of $16,000.

The court found that while the plaintiff's claim amounted to an abuse of process, her conduct did not rise to the level of scandalous or outrageous behaviour required for substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded costs to the defendants on a partial indemnity scale, fixing the quantum at $81,625.84, noting the complexity of the motion and the exemplary advocacy of defence counsel.

Following a partial judgment enforcing a settlement agreement, the court determined the outstanding issues of interest and costs.

The court awarded interest on the settlement funds from the date of acceptance to the date of payment, applying a 19.9% rate (reflecting the plaintiffs' litigation loan) on $200,000 and the Courts of Justice Act rate of 3% on the balance.

The court also fixed the plaintiffs' substantial indemnity costs for the period between the offer and acceptance, reducing the claimed fees slightly, and awarded partial indemnity costs of $11,000 for the hearing.

The plaintiff title insurer brought an undefended motion for summary judgment against a disbarred lawyer and his law firm.

The defendant had acted for vendors in a real estate transaction and misappropriated the purchase funds, failing to pay municipal taxes or discharge existing mortgages.

The plaintiff paid $101,484.38 to clear title for the purchasers and sought to recover this amount plus $100,000 in punitive damages.

The court granted judgment for the compensatory damages and awarded $25,000 in punitive damages, finding the defendant's conduct struck at the heart of the trust necessary for real estate transactions.

Following a nine-day hybrid trial involving parenting and financial issues, the applicant sought full recovery costs of $301,514.81 alleging bad faith by the respondent.

The respondent argued for divided success and sought partial recovery costs.

The court found divided success on parenting issues but overall success for the applicant on financial issues.

The court held that neither party's conduct met the threshold for bad faith, noting unreasonable behaviour by both.

Considering the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including offers to settle and the respondent's financial circumstances, the court fixed a reduced global costs award of $110,000 to the applicant.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of sexual interference and indecent exposure against his daughter when she was between 10 and 12 years old.

The offences occurred during his parenting time while the victim was isolated and vulnerable.

The Crown sought a 4-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence proposed 18 months to 2 years less a day.

Applying the principles from Friesen, the court emphasized the profound breach of trust and the devastating impact on the victim.

The court sentenced the offender to a global term of 3 years in a penitentiary, along with ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA registration and a s. 161 prohibition.

The applicant and respondent, who are brothers and equal shareholders in several corporations, commenced competing proceedings alleging oppression, misappropriation of funds, and breaches of fiduciary duty.

The respondent brought a motion to convert the applicant's application into an action and consolidate it with his own action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the extensive factual disputes, serious allegations of dishonesty, and need for credibility assessments required a full trial with oral evidence.

The proceedings were consolidated to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent judicial findings.