Superior Court of Justice

The defendants, RBC Insurance Agency Ltd. and Aviva General Insurance Company, sought to schedule a motion to stay an individual action and remove plaintiff's counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest, prior to the certification motion for a proposed class action.

The plaintiff, Kabir Singh, opposed this scheduling, arguing these issues should be determined at the certification hearing.

The court, applying section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, found that hearing the conflict and stay issues before certification would ensure a fair and expeditious determination, preventing potential delays and issues with adequacy of representation if a conflict were found later.

The court ordered the defendants' motion to be heard before the certification motion.

The Applicants in a CCAA proceeding sought a Meeting Order to accept the filing of a Plan of Compromise or Arrangement, approve creditor classification, authorize a meeting for voting on the Plan, set a sanction hearing date, and seal certain affidavits.

The court granted the motion, finding the Plan had sufficient support to summon a creditors' meeting, the proposed single class of secured creditors had a commonality of interest under CCAA s. 22(2), and the sealing of commercially sensitive information in the affidavits was appropriate.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent for leave to proceed with a secondary market misrepresentation claim under the Securities Act and for certification of the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes.

The parties reached a settlement of $700,000 to resolve allegations that the defendant pharmaceutical company made misrepresentations regarding antitrust investigations, its generic business, and the withdrawal of a product.

The court granted leave, certified the class action for settlement purposes, approved the notices, and appointed class counsel as the notice administrator.

The accused, David Gaudet, sought a detention review under section 525 of the Criminal Code after being detained on the secondary ground for five months.

The court considered the impact of the pandemic, the accused's Indigenous identity and Gladue principles, the strength of the Crown's case, and new information regarding the accused's stability and medical condition (asthma).

Despite the original detention being justified, the court found continued detention disproportionate given the indeterminate trial delay, suspension of Indigenous support services, and the accused's demonstrated ability to comply with strict conditions.

The accused was released into house confinement with a surety.

The plaintiffs moved under Rule 59.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to vary a prior judgment, seeking to reopen the trial to introduce new evidence and obtain a letter of request for additional evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the "new" evidence was available before trial with reasonable diligence and would not have changed the result.

The court emphasized the stringency of the test for reconsideration and found the motion to be another tactical attempt to delay.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded $741,000 in damages, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court denied substantial indemnity costs prior to the plaintiff's offer to settle, finding that the defendant's bad faith did not amount to egregious conduct.

However, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer to settle, as the plaintiff obtained a judgment more favourable than its offer.

Costs were fixed at $159,666.62, with reductions made for disproportionate time spent by senior counsel.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.

He appealed the conviction, alleging that the trial judge made several errors, including failing to properly appreciate material evidence, applying uneven scrutiny to defence evidence, failing to address credibility issues, misapplying reasonable doubt principles, relying on inadmissible material, and providing inadequate reasons.

The appeal court found that the trial judge properly applied the W.D. test, made findings of fact contrary to the appellant's evidence, and sufficiently articulated how credibility concerns and contradictory evidence were resolved.

The trial judge's disbelief of the appellant's evidence, combined with the accepted evidence of the complainant, led to a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21 to strike portions of the plaintiff's Amended Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim (AFAC), particularly a claim for negligent investigation against the employer.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion under Rule 26 to further amend the AFAC, including adding claims for intentional infliction of mental distress and defamation with malice.

The court granted the defendants' motion to strike the negligent investigation claim, affirming that the tort does not extend to employers conducting internal investigations, even with recent OHSA amendments.

The court partially granted the plaintiff's cross-motion, allowing amendments for intentional infliction of mental distress and certain defamation particulars, and for rephrasing reputation paragraphs, but denied other proposed amendments due to late filing and procedural fairness concerns.

The plaintiff, Voula Kardaras, sought long-term disability benefits from Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada due to major depressive disorder.

Sun Life discontinued benefits after Kardaras began a gradual return to work, asserting she was capable of full-time employment.

The court found Kardaras was entitled to "own occupation" benefits for approximately one year after discontinuation, as she was incapable of performing the essential duties of her occupation more than three days per week.

However, she was not entitled to "any occupation" benefits as her part-time work was reasonably commensurate in status and reward.

The court also awarded Kardaras $10,000 in mental distress damages due to Sun Life's breach of the duty of good faith in its handling of her claim.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to revise a conditional Certification Order, approve the Notice of Certification, and determine costs.

The court found it unnecessary and inappropriate to revise the Certification Order, as it was properly taken out and there was no mistake.

The court approved a modified Notice of Certification and directed the parties to make written submissions on costs.

The applicant mother sought an urgent motion for custody of the parties' two children, supervised access for the respondent father, and a restraining order, citing a history of domestic violence and a recent assault.

The father did not respond to the motion.

The court found the motion met the test for urgency due to paramount concerns for the children's safety and well-being.

The court ordered primary residence and full decision-making authority to the mother, discretionary supervised access for the father, and restricted communication between the parties.

The request for a restraining order was dismissed without prejudice, and a case conference was ordered as the next step.

The Father brought a motion seeking to prevent the Mother from unilaterally changing the children's schools and relocating them from Barrhaven to Orleans, or alternatively, to vary parenting time if the move was permitted.

The Mother opposed, citing financial necessity for the move.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" test from *Gordon v. Goertz*, found a material change in circumstances justifying the Mother's relocation to Orleans with the children.

The court permitted the Mother to move Max and Lucas to Orleans and to enroll Lucas in Convent Glen Catholic School, while Max was to remain at his current high school unless accepted into a special program.

The Father's parenting time was to be modestly increased to account for the relocation.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs arising from a prior motion.

The Applicant sought substantial indemnity costs based on her success, while the Respondent argued against any costs order, citing alleged improper conduct by the Applicant.

The court considered the Applicant's substantial success, the acrimonious nature of the parties' interactions, and their limited means during the pandemic, in accordance with Family Law Rule 24.

The Applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs.

The respondent sought leave for an urgent motion regarding parenting issues, specifically make-up time, alleging the applicant intermittently withheld their children.

The applicant opposed, providing evidence of the respondent's breaches of agreed-upon COVID-19 social distancing protocols and a unilateral reduction of child support.

The court found that the request for make-up time did not meet the threshold for an urgent or pressing issue, emphasizing the children's best interests and the moving parent's disregard for agreements and children's concerns.

The motion for leave was dismissed, and parties were encouraged to negotiate or mediate a temporary parenting plan and consider a Rule 15 Motion to Change.

The applicant sought leave to enforce an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board against the respondent, despite a province-wide moratorium on residential evictions due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The court balanced the risks to the landlord and other tenants from the respondent's violent behaviour against the risks to the respondent and public health if evicted during the pandemic.

Leave was granted on the condition that the applicant contact a social services agency to seek aid for the respondent prior to the eviction.

A member of the public requested a digital recording of a hearing held on May 9, 2016, for an application involving Todd Elliott Speck and The Law Society of Upper Canada.

The court denied the request, exercising its absolute discretion.

The reasons for denial included that the hearing was public, the decision was already released and final, no oral evidence was introduced making the recording an aide memoire, the decision was based on a written record available to the public, and no persuasive reason or relevance to current proceedings was provided by the requesting party.

Following a family law trial, the court addressed equalization, child support, and spousal support after finding persistent and deliberate financial non-disclosure by the respondent concerning foreign assets in Turkey.

Applying adverse inferences and the statutory net family property framework under the Family Law Act, the court included multiple real estate and investment interests that the respondent had failed to properly disclose, including assets held through family members or masked through indirect arrangements.

The court fixed an equalization payment of $621,500, ordered child support only until the child turned 18, and ordered spousal support only to December 31, 2019.

After reconciling prior interim disbursements and post-separation line of credit withdrawals, the respondent's remaining debt was fixed at $458,980.09 after credit for trust funds.

The applicant sought an order for the sale of a jointly-owned property under the Partition Act.

The respondent, who had been in sole occupation and receiving rental income for five years, did not oppose the sale but disputed terms regarding the realtor, property taxes, bidding rights, and costs.

The court ordered the sale of the property, requiring an arms-length realtor, allowing the respondent to bid, and ordering the respondent to pay $2,000 in costs to the applicant.

The net proceeds of sale were to be equally divided, with any tax liens paid by the responsible party.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a motion for court approval of a consumer proposal, necessitated by a creditor's objection.

The Administrator of Ocean Dezarie Bonneau's consumer proposal sought costs against Brenden Higgins, a creditor, after Higgins' extensive objections, including allegations of non-disclosure and fraud, were largely rejected by the court and the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy.

The court found Higgins' actions caused the proceedings to become unduly protracted and that his objection was illogical, as a bankruptcy would have resulted in a lower dividend for creditors.

The Administrator was successful in obtaining approval of the proposal.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the Administrator, assessing them at $2,200, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable by Higgins within 200 days, with an extended payment period granted due to his reduced income.

K.R. was charged with first-degree murder of his mother.

He sought to plead guilty to second-degree murder, which the Crown refused.

The trial focused on whether the murder was planned and deliberate, which would elevate it to first-degree murder.

The court found that while K.R. murdered his mother, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was planned and deliberate, dismissing the Crown's theory based on an internet search and the nature of the attack.

K.R. was found guilty of second-degree murder.