Superior Court of Justice

The defendant, Jason Borden, pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and proceeded to trial on charges of discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, aggravated assault, and using a firearm while committing an indictable offence.

The court reviewed video evidence and witness testimony, making detailed findings of fact regarding an altercation between Borden and Darius Salmon.

Borden raised defences of self-defence and accident.

The court found no air of reality to the self-defence claim, and even if there were, Borden's actions were not reasonable given the circumstances, as Salmon was unarmed and did not physically threaten Borden before the gun was drawn.

The court also rejected the defence of accident, finding Borden's testimony regarding the gun's discharge not credible.

Consequently, Borden was found guilty on all three remaining counts.

The plaintiff brought an action claiming a 50% partnership or beneficial interest in a residential property purchased by the defendant Kats.

The plaintiff alleged they had an oral agreement to share the down payment and carrying costs equally.

The court found the plaintiff failed to contribute any funds, fraudulently placed a second mortgage in Kats' name, and breached the purported agreement.

When Kats attempted to sell the property to a bona fide purchaser, the plaintiff improperly registered notices on title to block the sale, despite a court order.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, validated the sale agreement, and awarded the purchaser $35,000 in punitive damages for slander of title due to the plaintiff's malicious conduct.

The plaintiffs filed affidavits containing confidential information about a minor child (Student Q) and her family, breaching a prior confidentiality order (Penny Order).

The defendants and Student Q's family successfully moved to have these affidavits removed/redacted.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that motion.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct reprehensible and deserving of reprimand, rejecting their arguments of inadvertence and access to justice without evidence of impecuniosity.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to Student Q's family, and reduced costs to the defendants, totaling $41,633.44, payable by the plaintiffs.

This endorsement from a case conference addressed outstanding issues of child support and disclosure.

The court provided directions for the respondent to address corporate financial disclosure, including potentially engaging an accountant, and for personal disclosure to be exchanged.

The parties were encouraged to reach consent on disclosure timelines and support proposals, with the court prepared to issue a procedural order if no agreement was reached.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for recusal of the case management judge.

The plaintiffs alleged actual and perceived bias, which the court found to be unsubstantiated.

The defendants sought substantial or partial indemnity costs for their opposition to the recusal motion.

The court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs, finding their participation necessary and appropriate, and rejected the plaintiffs' arguments for no costs based on access to justice or financial hardship without evidentiary support.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs as a reprimand for unsubstantiated bias allegations, emphasizing that costs awards should be reasonable and not punitive.

The Applicant Father sought an urgent motion to resume court-ordered access to his daughter, which the Respondent Mother had unilaterally suspended due to COVID-19 concerns, the child's health, and the Father's alleged alcohol abuse and association with a "drug house." The court found the Mother's unilateral suspension wrongful.

While acknowledging the Mother's concerns, particularly regarding the Father's social distancing and attendance at a questionable residence, the court ordered the immediate recommencement of access with modifications.

These modifications included shortened access time, specific exchange protocols, continued breath sample reporting by the Father, strict adherence to COVID-19 protocols, and a prohibition on attending the "Cliftonvale Residence" without sworn evidence of legitimate work.

The applicant mother sought an order for primary residence, final decision-making authority, and permission to relocate with the parties' 10-year-old daughter from Aberfoyle to Ajax to live with her new partner.

The respondent father opposed the move and sought an equal shared parenting arrangement and joint custody.

The court denied the mother's request to relocate, finding that the move would be highly disruptive to the child and would sever her ties to her community, school, extended family, and father.

The court ordered joint custody and an equal week-about shared parenting schedule, finding that both parents were capable and loving, and that maximum contact with both parents was in the child's best interests.

Child support was ordered on a set-off basis in accordance with the shared parenting arrangement.

This decision addresses costs arising from a successful interlocutory injunction motion brought by Wayne and Liana Gendron against the City of Kawartha Lakes.

The Gendrons sought substantial indemnity costs, while TD Bank, a non-party, also requested costs.

The City opposed both requests.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the Gendrons, finding the City's opposition to the underlying injunction motion to be without merit.

TD Bank's request for costs was denied, as it was a non-party with a mere "watching brief" whose counsel's attendance added nothing to the argument.

On consent of both parties, the Superior Court of Justice allowed a summary conviction sentence appeal, imposing a sentence of 179 days.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking various relief, including the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, an urgent case conference, and orders restraining the respondent father's communication and filming of exchanges.

The court addressed preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and procedural fairness, finding it had jurisdiction to vary a final order on an interim basis in urgent cases.

The court found a strong prima facie case for a change in parenting arrangements due to high conflict and harm to the children, particularly the eldest.

The court suspended the existing shared parenting schedule, granted the mother primary residency and final decision-making authority on a temporary basis, and ordered the father to pay costs for delayed pleadings.

The applicant sought to stay a Final Order awarding joint legal custody and increased parenting time to the respondent, pending an appeal.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay in parenting cases, considering whether the appeal raised a serious issue, if irreparable harm would occur, and the balance of convenience, with the child's best interests as the overriding factor.

While the appeal did not raise a serious issue regarding joint decision-making or the general increase in contact, it did meet the threshold for specific residential arrangements due to fresh evidence of the child's increased anxiety and regressive behaviors post-order implementation, exacerbated by COVID-19 changes.

The motion to stay joint decision-making was dismissed, but a partial, time-limited stay was granted for future incremental increases in the respondent's overnight access and summer holiday access, allowing the child more time to adjust.

The respondents brought a motion to vary a consent order registered on title to land, seeking to limit its application to only lots relevant to the dispute.

The applicants opposed, citing the respondents' breaches of obligations under the consent order and minutes of settlement, and concerns about related companies.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondents did not meet the high threshold to vary a consent order, as the "new facts" (PIN assignments) were foreseeable, and the respondents had demonstrated a disregard for their obligations, justifying the applicants' concerns about security.

The applicant sought a s.520 review of a detention order made on secondary grounds.

The court found several material changes in circumstances since the original show cause hearing, including the COVID-19 pandemic, a new release plan involving residence with his daughter, and the withdrawal of one of the charges.

The court also expressed reservations about the adequacy of the reasons for the initial detention order.

Applying principles favouring release, the court granted the bail review and ordered the applicant's release on specific conditions, emphasizing the importance of proportionality of pre-trial detention, especially given potential trial delays due to the pandemic.

The applicant sought leave to commence an urgent constitutional application challenging the regulation governing physiotherapy licensing in Ontario, while an appeal to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) was ongoing.

The court denied the motion for urgency and permission to file the application, finding it premature and an attempt to circumvent the administrative tribunal process.

The court emphasized that parties should exhaust tribunal proceedings before seeking judicial review or constitutional challenges in court, especially when the tribunal can address constitutional rights related to its process.

The court also noted the lack of a full evidentiary basis for the proposed constitutional challenge and the absence of demonstrated substantial prejudice.

A motion was brought by the consumer proposal administrator to review Ocean Dezarie Bonneau's consumer proposal, which was deemed accepted by creditors.

A creditor, Brenden Higgins, demanded the review and opposed approval, raising concerns about non-disclosure of assets, post-filing debt, family unit income, and alleged fraudulent activity and BIA offences.

The court found that while some issues, like the purchase of a luxury vehicle post-filing, had poor optics, they did not disentitle the debtor from the proposal.

The court also clarified the family unit composition and dismissed allegations of BIA offences and fraud, noting fraud claims must be pursued in separate civil proceedings.

Ultimately, the court approved the consumer proposal, finding it provided a superior return to unsecured creditors compared to bankruptcy.

The applicant, charged with conspiracy to commit murder, drug trafficking, and firearm possession, applied for judicial interim release.

The Crown opposed release on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found that the strict release plan, which included house arrest, electronic monitoring, and supervision by the applicant's parents, adequately addressed the secondary ground concerns.

On the tertiary ground, although the charges were extremely serious and the Crown's case appeared strong, the court held that the applicant's Type 1 diabetes placed him at higher risk of severe complications from COVID-19 in a congregate setting.

Balancing the strict release plan, the health risks, and the need to flatten the curve, the court granted the application for release.

The defendants requested a chambers appointment to discuss outstanding defence medical assessments and the rescheduling of a pretrial conference.

The assessments were cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court ordered the defence experts to conduct paper reviews or virtual assessments of the plaintiff so that their opinions would be available for the upcoming virtual pretrial conference.

The court also held that if the matter proceeds to trial, the plaintiff must make themselves available for in-person assessments by those experts, limited to areas absent from their initial reports.

The respondents brought a motion seeking a contempt order against the applicant for breaching a disclosure order, an order to set aside restraining orders against Wilfred Abraham, and an order to appoint an inspector for Scorpio Specialty Services Inc. The court dismissed the contempt claim, finding non-compliance but not intentional breach.

It terminated the restraining orders against Wilfred Abraham, concluding they were no longer necessary due to changed circumstances and the applicant's inconsistent positions regarding Abraham's status.

The court granted the request to appoint BDO as an inspector under s. 161(2) of the Ontario Business Corporations Act, finding a prima facie case that the business affairs may have unfairly disregarded security holder interests, with the respondents initially bearing the investigation costs subject to re-apportionment at trial.

The applicant sought an urgent order for the sale of the matrimonial home and mortgage deferral due to dire financial circumstances exacerbated by the pandemic, and for the respondent's signature on sale documents to be dispensed with.

The court granted the applicant's motion under the Partition Act, finding the motion urgent and the respondent's proposed alternatives unrealistic, despite the parties no longer being "spouses" under the Family Law Act.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application, the successful respondent sought costs.

The respondent requested costs of $13,612.53, which was approximately twice the amount it had set out in its Form 57B costs outline delivered prior to the decision.

The court held that a party cannot seek costs exceeding the amount in its costs outline, as doing so would undermine the purpose of the rule requiring parties to commit to their costs positions.

The respondent's costs were limited to the amount requested in its costs outline.