Superior Court of Justice

The applicant, Lorri Lynn Parkins, sought an order for partition and sale of the matrimonial home as interim relief in her application to set aside a separation agreement with the respondent, Douglas John Parkins.

The court declined to order the sale, finding that it would prejudice the respondent’s rights under the agreement, which had not yet been set aside.

However, the court ordered the respondent to pay the shortfall from the initial equalization payment and to resume full monthly payments, as his unilateral reductions were improper.

Costs were not awarded, as success was divided.

The decision concerns a bail application by Gurpreet Singh, who is sought for extradition to the United States on charges related to large-scale cocaine trafficking.

Singh proposed a strict house arrest bail plan with GPS monitoring and multiple sureties.

The court found the plan had strengths but ultimately denied bail due to a high risk of flight, citing Singh’s international connections, travel history, and lack of credible financial disclosure.

The application was dismissed.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of a motion by the plaintiffs to abridge the time for service of an expert report regarding the standard of care by a hospital.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, as well as the principles in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario.

The court found that a fair and reasonable award of costs for the motion was $7,500, to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant, Grand River Hospital.

The plaintiff, Maria Prete, brought a motion for leave to add three new defendants and to amend her statement of claim in a slip-and-fall action.

The court found that the motion to add Avison Young (Canada) Inc. as a defendant was brought outside the applicable limitation period and must be dismissed.

The motion was granted as against the other two proposed defendants, Bay International Inc. and Long & Morris Property Management Ltd., who did not oppose the motion, but without prejudice to their right to plead a limitation defence.

Costs were awarded to Avison Young.

The court considered whether a United States gift tax liability arising from a 2009 transfer of Florida property by the deceased, Carolyn Alexander, was a just debt of her Ontario estate.

The applicant, Carrie Lynn Dyjack, sought the court’s direction after paying the tax and related expenses personally.

The court found that the U.S. Gift Tax was a proper liability of the estate, rejecting the respondent’s arguments that the tax was not intended to be paid from the estate, that it was a “charge” payable by the beneficiary under the Succession Law Reform Act, or that it was unenforceable in Canada.

The court ordered the estate to reimburse the applicant for the tax and related expenses.

The plaintiffs, Albert Carbone and Cathy Horvath, sought default and summary judgment against several defendants for misappropriating their life savings through a fraudulent investment scheme involving a non-existent cannabis business.

The court granted default judgment against Salvatore Boccia, David Shpilt, and 215 Holding Corp. for fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment, and summary judgment against Rosanna Boccia for fraud, conversion, and oppression.

Punitive damages were awarded against Salvatore Boccia, David Shpilt, and 215 Holding Corp. The court found the conduct to be brazen, intentional, and a marked departure from ordinary standards of behaviour, and held the defendants jointly and severally liable for the losses.

This decision grants an interlocutory injunction exempting all existing supervised consumption sites (SCSs) in Ontario from the operation of section 2 of the Community Care and Recovery Act, 2024, pending a final decision on the merits.

The court finds that the three-part test for injunctive relief is met: there is a serious issue to be tried regarding Charter rights, irreparable harm would result from SCS closures, and the balance of convenience favours the applicants.

The ruling details the public health crisis of opioid use, the role of SCSs in harm reduction, and the disproportionate impact of closures on marginalized populations.

The Applicants, The Cannabist Company Holdings (Canada) Inc. and 16834434 Canada Inc., sought an interim order under section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) to approve a plan of arrangement and to direct the holding of a meeting of Senior Noteholders.

The Court granted the interim order, finding the Applicants acted in good faith and met the statutory requirements.

The Court also approved the classification of all Senior Noteholders as a single class for voting purposes, rejecting the respondent's argument for separate classes.

The order included a limited stay of proceedings and set out the process for the upcoming meeting and final order hearing.

The applicant, Panagiotis Korogonas, sought to vary a temporary, without prejudice child support order (the "Shore Order") so that either the respondent, Samantha Iorio, would pay him child support or neither party would pay.

The court applied the test from Gilkinson v. Nichols, 2023 ONSC 1504, and found that the applicant had not established a prima facie case for a material change in circumstances or that the current arrangement was incongruous or absurd.

The motion was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs to the respondent.

This endorsement addresses a motion in a certified class action regarding the scope of discovery.

The defendant, Western Union, sought to compel the representative plaintiff to answer two refused questions: (a) to produce facts and evidence from class members in the possession of class counsel, and (b) to advise whether plaintiffs’ counsel had spoken to any collectors or brokers.

The court found both questions improper, as they would effectively grant the defendant discovery of all class members and class counsel, contrary to the principles of class proceedings and privilege.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The court sentenced Tahir Ali for multiple drug trafficking offences, including fentanyl, methamphetamine, cocaine, oxycodone, and benzodiazepine, as well as possession of ammunition while subject to a weapons prohibition.

The decision reviews the devastating impact of the opioid crisis on individuals, families, and Indigenous communities in Grey-Bruce, Ontario.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including Ali’s prior record, health, and time spent in lockdown.

Drawing on recent appellate guidance, the court imposed a global sentence of 10 years for the drug offences and a consecutive 6-month sentence for the weapons prohibition breach, less credit for pre-trial custody.

The defendant, Hydro One Networks Inc., moved for a temporary stay of an action brought by Nyon Oil Inc. and 1170367 Ontario Inc. regarding land ownership and rights to operate electricity transmission infrastructure.

The court considered the overlap and differences between the Superior Court action and a parallel Ontario Energy Board proceeding, ultimately granting a one-year stay to allow the Board to determine expropriation and related issues first.

The court found that the Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the ongoing operation of the transmission system and that a stay would avoid inconsistent findings and protect the public interest.

This decision concerns a mid-trial motion in a construction lien action.

The plaintiff, Village Homes Inc., sought to strike portions of the affidavit and report of the defendant’s witness, Yu Ching Lai, regarding the presence of rebar and concrete in a disputed wall and observations of wall cracking.

The court found that Mr. Lai lacked personal knowledge regarding the rebar and concrete, as his evidence was based on hearsay from a video, and struck those portions.

However, the court allowed Mr. Lai to testify about his personal observations of wall cracking.

The ruling also addresses the parties’ discovery and production obligations, the scope of undertakings, and the admissibility of participant expert evidence.

The appellant, G.T., challenged a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming the criteria for issuing a Community Treatment Order (CTO) under the Mental Health Act.

The appeal focused on whether there was informed consent by the substitute decision maker (SDM) and whether the Board erred by relying on uncorroborated hearsay.

The court found that the SDM was properly informed and consented to the treatment plan, and that the Board did not make a palpable and overriding error.

The appeal was dismissed.

This ruling addresses whether Anne Meehan, a plaintiff, is competent to testify at trial.

The court reviews medical assessments of Ms. Meehan’s capacity, the statutory requirements under the Ontario Evidence Act, and the parties’ arguments regarding the necessity and form of a competency examination.

The court concludes that a voir dire is required to determine Ms. Meehan’s competency, as mandated by section 18(2) of the Evidence Act, and clarifies that such an examination need not occur in a formal courtroom setting.

This endorsement addresses outstanding issues between Katherine Britton and Nicholas Leigh following the breakdown of their relationship, including parenting matters for their child, Eleanor, and division of property.

The parties participated in a Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) hearing, resolved several issues, and set out procedures for travel, childcare, and communication.

Remaining property issues are to be discussed at a continuation of the JDR.

The applicants, Dennis Singh and Justin Sandassie, challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory life sentence without parole eligibility for 25 years for first degree murder under section 745(a) of the Criminal Code.

The court reviewed the facts of the offence, the parties' positions, and the binding Supreme Court of Canada precedents.

The application was dismissed, with the court holding that the mandatory minimum sentence remains constitutionally valid and is not grossly disproportionate or overbroad under the Charter.

The court voided six promissory notes and struck out related mortgages registered by the plaintiffs against the defendants' properties, finding that the notes were materially altered without consent, contrary to the Bills of Exchange Act.

The court also declined to grant equitable mortgages or certificates of pending litigation, citing the plaintiffs' inequitable conduct and failure to meet statutory tests.

The decision addresses issues of forged notes, after-acquired property, corporate personality, and the application of the Family Law Act to matrimonial homes.