Superior Court of Justice

The court sentenced Milton Urgiles to five years' imprisonment for criminal negligence causing death, following the fatal crash of a commercial truck with unroadworthy tires.

The decision reviews the facts, victim impact, aggravating and mitigating factors, and relevant sentencing principles and authorities, emphasizing the high degree of moral blameworthiness and the need for denunciation and deterrence in workplace safety offences.

The court considered motions regarding contempt of a prior order and the setting aside of an interim injunction in a dispute over residential construction and compliance with the Building Code Act.

The respondent was found in contempt for limited conduct but had made significant efforts to purge the contempt.

The court set aside the interim injunction, ordered the respondent to maintain engineering oversight and pay for inspections, and imposed a $7,500 fine for contempt.

The applicant sought to vary a 20-year-old interim child support order to terminate his support obligations for three children and to seek reimbursement for support paid after the children allegedly became disentitled.

The respondent opposed and sought an increase in child support retroactive to November 1, 2019.

The court found that the applicant had underpaid support for years due to not disclosing increased income, and that the respondent was entitled to retroactive support for the two remaining eligible children, calculated based on the applicant’s true available income, including retained corporate earnings.

The court fixed arrears and set out the process for determining costs and payment of arrears.

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

The court granted, in part, the applicant's motion for preservation and restraining orders over the respondent's assets in Ontario, a Mareva injunction over worldwide assets, and remedies for breach of court orders in a high-value family law dispute.

The respondent, who had moved millions of dollars out of Canada and failed to comply with multiple court orders, was precluded from further participation in the case, and a date for an uncontested trial was ordered.

The court declined to find contempt or impose a monetary penalty, but awarded full recovery costs to the applicant.

The court dismissed the defendant RNAO’s motion to strike or stay the plaintiff’s claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action and for duplicity with a second pending action.

The court found that the plaintiff’s claim for breach of good faith in the administration of RNAO’s Legal Assistance Program was novel but arguable, and that the law in this area remains unsettled.

The court also declined to stay or dismiss the action as an abuse of process, finding that the existence of a second, similar action did not automatically warrant such relief and that the issues could be managed through case management or consolidation.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Bennington Financial Corp. against 2724112 Ontario Inc. and Christopher Graham for amounts owing under a commercial equipment lease.

The court found that the defendants' defences were fully answered by the plaintiff's evidence, including admissions of payment and execution of the lease, and that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court reserved on interest and costs, inviting written submissions.

The defendants moved for an order compelling the plaintiff to attend a psychological assessment and for leave to serve the resulting report after the expert report deadline, in the context of a personal injury action arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision.

The court granted the motion, finding that both parties bore responsibility for the lack of an expert report schedule and that fairness required the defendants be permitted to respond to the plaintiff’s psychological claims.

The court also granted leave for late service of the report, provided it was served by April 4, 2025, and encouraged the parties to resolve costs.

The court dismissed an application by Alain Bellefeuille for a temporary publication ban regarding information related to a Special Investigations Unit (SIU) investigation.

Bellefeuille, charged with first degree murder and attempted murder, argued that publication of the SIU report could prejudice his right to a fair trial.

The court found the risk to trial fairness was speculative and could be mitigated by jury selection and instructions.

The open court principle and freedom of expression outweighed any potential benefit of a publication ban.

The court granted a motion to dispense with service of the statement of claim and motion on the deceased’s estate, finding that the plaintiff had made extensive but unsuccessful efforts to locate a representative for the estate.

The court relied on the Rules of Civil Procedure and relevant case law to permit the proceeding to continue in the absence of a representative, and ordered that any surplus proceeds be paid into court on notice to the beneficiaries.

Costs were fixed at $8,943.47.

The accused, N.D.H., was charged with multiple sexual offences against a child.

The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s evidence, which was found to be inconsistent and unclear on significant points.

The defence established a motive to fabricate based on the complainant’s upset over having her electronic devices taken away.

The court found the accused’s evidence credible and acquitted him, holding that the Crown had not proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court considered a claim for lien and breach of contract by Zagros Homes Development Inc. against the owners and construction manager/general contractor of a residential construction project.

The court found that Zagros had a valid subcontract with Cando 1 Construction Inc., that Cando breached the contract by terminating it and hiring the sub-subcontractor directly, and that Zagros was entitled to damages for unpaid work.

However, the court found that Zagros failed to prove the timeliness of its lien claim, and thus the lien was declared expired and vacated.

This decision concerns a motion to change a parenting order under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court finds a material change in circumstances since the original order, including ongoing conflict, family violence, and the child's exposure to harm.

The mother is granted sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the child, with the father receiving specified parenting time.

The court also addresses child support, imputing income to the father based on available evidence, and sets out a detailed parenting schedule and related orders.

The decision addresses a motion by the plaintiff, James Pushie, in a property dispute with Carmela Guidarelli following the breakdown of their romantic and business relationship.

The court considers the admissibility of evidence previously ruled inadmissible, the scope of evidence at trial, the amendment of pleadings, and ongoing disclosure obligations.

The court grants the plaintiff leave to amend his pleadings, clarifies that evidence previously excluded at the application stage may be tendered at trial subject to relevance and admissibility, and sets out procedural directions for the conduct of the trial.

The decision addresses a Charter application by Brandon Abrams regarding the timing of detention and the police obligation to hold off investigation until section 10(b) of the Charter is fully implemented.

The court finds that Abrams was not detained prior to his formal arrest, but that his section 10(b) rights were breached when police questioned him about new charges before he had a renewed opportunity to consult counsel.

The court excludes identity documents from evidence but admits drugs, an airsoft pistol, and drug paraphernalia.

The plaintiff, Jaymat Limited, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, Vivo Pizza Pasta Franchising Inc. and Pino Trichilo, for repayment of advances made in respect of several restaurant locations.

The court found that the advances, initially ambiguous as to whether they were loans or equity, were ultimately confirmed as loans by a promissory note signed in October 2021.

The court held that both defendants received consideration for signing the note, and that the note was enforceable.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiff for $2,100,000 plus interest, with leave to amend the corporate defendant’s name.

The respondent, John Kenyon, brought an urgent motion to reinstate his parenting time with his child, RK, after it was suspended due to non-compliance with Soberlink alcohol testing protocols and outstanding costs orders.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Kenyon’s breaches of multiple court orders, failure to pay costs, and lack of full and frank disclosure when seeking leave to bring the motion were significant.

The court emphasized the importance of compliance with court orders and the duty of candour in ex parte motions.

Costs were awarded to the applicant, Rachel Ross.

The applicants, private lenders, sought rectification of the land register or re-registration of two discharged second mortgages after a failed real estate closing.

The court found that the applicants had received full payment and voluntarily returned the discharge funds to trust, and that there was no basis in law or equity to grant rectification or re-registration.

The application was dismissed.

The court acquitted Nicol Oliver White of sexual assault, finding that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant, Z.E., did not consent to the sexual activity in question.

The decision turned on the credibility and reliability of the evidence provided by both the complainant and the accused, as well as corroborating evidence from a third party witness.

The court found material inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence and accepted the accused’s version of events as raising a reasonable doubt.