Superior Court of Justice

The decision addresses the admissibility and weight of evidence in a drug trafficking prosecution, focusing on the negligent loss of a police entry video documenting the state of the apartment before a search.

The court finds a breach of section 7 of the Charter due to unacceptable police negligence but declines to exclude the evidence, instead giving reduced weight to the testimony of the officers responsible.

The accused is found guilty on the drug trafficking counts but acquitted on the proceeds of crime count.

This costs decision follows the dismissal of both the plaintiff’s action and the defendant’s counterclaim in a dispute over a right-of-way between neighbouring commercial properties.

The Canadian Dental Hygienists Association (CDHA) sought costs for both the trial and a prior motion.

The court found that CDHA was the successful party and awarded it $35,000 in costs, all-inclusive, payable by Ms. Layton.

The decision reviews the relevant legal principles, including the discretion of the court under the Courts of Justice Act and the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and applies the cost limits under the Simplified Procedure.

The court determines the date of separation for the purposes of divorce, equalization, and related relief between Mei Yang and Weidong Xie.

The applicant asserted a separation date of June 20, 2022, while the respondent claimed December 31, 2014.

After a detailed review of the parties’ credibility, documentary evidence, and the objective factors relevant to separation, the court finds the applicant’s evidence more credible and sets the date of separation as June 20, 2022.

The court considered two motions: (1) by the Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim (the 501 Parties) for leave to file a Fresh as Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, and (2) by the Plaintiffs/Defendants by Counterclaim (the 2B Parties) for a further and better Affidavit of Documents.

The court granted the 501 Parties' motion, finding no abuse of process or limitation period bar, and authorized the Amended Pleading.

The court also largely granted the 2B Parties' request for further production, ordering disclosure of missing bank records and email attachments, and set out a process for resolving any further disputes over redactions or missing documents.

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

The decision concerns a "faint hope" application by Timothy Belisle, convicted of first-degree murder, seeking a reduction in his parole ineligibility period after serving 15 years.

The court reviews the legislative history and legal standards for faint hope applications, the applicant’s background, conduct, and rehabilitation efforts, as well as the positions of both parties.

Ultimately, the court finds that Mr. Belisle has not demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success before a jury and dismisses the application.

The court sentenced Kane Alexander Underhill for aggravated assault after a guilty plea.

The facts involved a violent, unprovoked two-on-one attack on a vulnerable, homeless victim, resulting in severe injuries.

The court considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including Mr. Underhill’s Indigenous background, substance abuse, harsh pre-sentence custody, and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court imposed a seven-year sentence, less pre-sentence custody, and made ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order.

This costs decision follows the settlement of a real property dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants.

The court addresses the appropriate allocation of costs after the parties settled the action for $14,000, an amount within the Small Claims Court’s jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs sought full indemnity costs, alleging the defendants’ conduct prolonged the litigation, while the defendants sought costs from the plaintiffs, arguing the action should have been brought in Small Claims Court.

The court found neither party’s conduct justified elevated costs, and, applying the relevant legal principles, ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs $2,170.01 in costs, reflecting a partial indemnity basis and the effect of an unaccepted offer to settle.

The Honsbergers moved to discharge or reduce a construction lien registered by Homes by Hendriks Inc. (HBH) against their property.

The court found that the date of last lienable work was a genuine issue requiring a trial and declined to discharge the lien.

However, the court reduced the lien amount by $145,121.47, finding that certain materials were not delivered and that a 20% management fee was not lienable.

The court clarified its jurisdiction to reduce a lien under section 35 of the Construction Act and provided guidance on the treatment of overhead and project management fees in lien claims.

The court found Benabdallah Chouchaoui in contempt of a permanent injunction order prohibiting him and his company from holding out as engineers, engaging in the practice of professional engineering, or using an engineering seal without proper authorization under the Professional Engineers Act.

The decision details a pattern of non-compliance, including misuse of another engineer’s seal, failure to comply with court-ordered procedures, and evasive conduct.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the applicant and scheduled a sentencing hearing.

The court dismissed the respondents’ motion to stay an application brought by Halton Healthcare Services Corporation, finding that there was no binding agreement to arbitrate, that the respondents had taken substantive steps in the litigation, and that they had moved with undue delay in seeking a stay.

The decision interprets the requirements for a stay under section 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, and applies recent appellate and Supreme Court authority on the prerequisites for a stay and the effect of participation in litigation.

The plaintiffs brought a mid-trial motion seeking to prevent the defendant, John Cardill, from relitigating whether their former solicitor, Donald Good, breached the standard of care in settling their personal injury actions.

The plaintiffs argued that this issue had already been determined in a prior costs assessment by Justice Hackland.

The court reviewed the doctrine of abuse of process and concluded that it did not apply in this case, as Mr. Cardill was not a party to the prior proceeding and it would be unfair to bar him from making a full defence.

The motion was dismissed.

The decision concerns an interlocutory injunction sought by Mondee, Inc. and related companies against former employees and their new employer, Voyzant Inc., after a mass departure of staff and alleged misappropriation of confidential information.

The court grants an injunction requiring the return and destruction of Mondee’s confidential information taken by a departing employee, but declines to restrain the defendants from soliciting or dealing with certain customers, finding insufficient evidence of irreparable harm and that damages would be quantifiable.

The ruling provides a detailed analysis of the legal tests for interlocutory injunctions in the context of confidential business information and fiduciary duties.

The decision concerns the prosecution of Brandon Caleb for trafficking in a controlled substance, possession of a loaded firearm, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including intercepted communications, expert testimony, and physical evidence, established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Caleb trafficked in cocaine and possessed a loaded firearm at his residence.

The court rejected alternative explanations and found the evidence did not support reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

The defendant, 485 Logan Developments Inc., brought a motion under section 44(5)(b) of the Construction Act to reduce the security it posted for a claim for lien registered by the plaintiff, Maple Drywall Inc., relating to a stacked condominium project.

The court found a genuine issue of fact as to whether an "overage" amount was part of the contract price and thus properly included in the lien, but determined that 30% of the overage was not owed, requiring a reduction in posted security.

The court also awarded damages to Logan for excessive interest paid on the lien bond and partial indemnity costs to Maple, reflecting the parties' relative success and conduct.

The Applicant, NP Health Clinic Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Respondent, 2456192 Ontario Inc., from terminating its commercial lease and evicting it for alleged failure to obtain adequate liability insurance as required by the lease.

The court found that the Landlord’s Notice of Default did not comply with the Commercial Tenancies Act because it failed to specify the particular deficiencies in the Tenant’s insurance.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, subject to the Landlord serving a compliant Notice of Default and the Tenant being given an opportunity to remedy any specified deficiencies.

The appellant, Prosper Chenjelani, appealed his conviction for driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg in 100 ml of blood, contrary to s. 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal was based on alleged errors by the trial judge, including the rejection of evidence of racial profiling, the sufficiency of reasons, and the application of the law regarding racial profiling.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the trial judge’s findings and the applicable legal standards, ultimately dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction.

This decision concerns the approval of a plan of arrangement under section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act for Sherritt International Corporation and 16743714 Canada Inc. The plan involves the exchange and restructuring of certain debt obligations, including Senior Secured Notes and Junior Notes, to stabilize the company’s financial position.

The court reviews the statutory and fairness requirements for approval, considers objections, and ultimately finds the arrangement fair and reasonable, granting the final order.

This decision concerns a dispute arising from a series of real estate investments and construction projects between Darioush Nobahar (a builder) and Kambiz Heshmati (a real estate agent), along with their respective companies and associates.

The court addresses the parties' financial contributions, the breakdown of their business relationship, and the resulting claims and counterclaims for breach of contract and negligence.

The court finds that Nobahar abandoned the Deloraine project, dismisses his claims, and awards damages to the defendants on their counterclaim.