Superior Court of Justice

This is a summary conviction appeal from Jason Robertson’s conviction for refusal to provide a breath sample under s. 320.15 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the demand for a breath sample was not made “immediately” as required, and that unusual circumstances did not excuse any delay.

The court found that the demand was made promptly after ensuring the appellant’s health and safety following a serious accident, and that any delay was justified by the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed.

The court granted the applicant trustee’s request to pass accounts, dispense with a formal passing for a subsequent period, approve compensation, remove herself as trustee, and appoint CIBC Trust as successor.

The court found the trustee’s compensation reasonable, the objections of the respondent Michael Wilson unsubstantiated, and awarded increased costs against Michael due to his conduct.

The decision addresses the administration of a testamentary trust, the entitlement to compensation, and the allocation of costs in estate litigation.

The applicants sought to compel Voreon Inc. to comply with a 2016 Settlement Agreement requiring the transfer of shares in Eminence Living Inc. and Higher Living Development Inc. The court reviewed the complex business history, the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and the impact of ongoing related proceedings, including the PSA Action and the Kayzan Distribution Application.

The court determined that the relief sought could not be granted at this time due to the unresolved status of these related proceedings and ordered that the application be heard contemporaneously with or immediately following the PSA Action.

Costs were awarded to Voreon.

The court sentenced Samantha Arezo Faryadpoor for her role in a violent home invasion and robbery.

While she did not physically assault the victim, she was an active participant in the planning and execution of the offence.

The court considered both aggravating and mitigating factors, including the seriousness of the offence, the lasting harm to the victim, Faryadpoor’s youth, her guilty plea, and her efforts at rehabilitation.

The court imposed a sentence of three years and ten months in jail, less credit for pre-sentence custody and time on house arrest, followed by two years’ probation with conditions.

The plaintiff, Kalbow Restorations Inc., sought an urgent interlocutory injunction against its franchisor, Goodbye Graffiti Inc., and related parties, alleging improper termination of their franchise agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Kalbow had committed incurable material defaults under the agreement by using unauthorized chemicals and suppliers, and had not demonstrated a strong prima facie case or a serious issue to be tried.

The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis.

The court sentenced Abel Assefa for possession of a loaded, restricted firearm without a license, contrary to s. 95 of the Criminal Code.

The decision reviews the facts, the parties' positions, and the applicable sentencing principles, including the impact of systemic anti-Black racism.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, to be served in the community, with periods of house arrest and curfew, and ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The offender was convicted of second degree murder by a jury for stabbing the victim.

The jury unanimously recommended the minimum 10-year period of parole ineligibility.

The Crown sought a 13-year period, while the defence sought 10 years.

The court considered the offender's character, the nature and circumstances of the offence, the unanimous jury recommendation, and the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody.

The court imposed the minimum 10-year period of parole ineligibility.

This is a first-stage ruling on a habeas corpus application brought by Andre Ducic, who asserts that his recent confinement at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre was inconsistent with a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board.

The court finds that there is sufficient concern to warrant a full inquiry into the lawfulness of Mr. Ducic’s imprisonment and orders the matter to proceed to the second stage, requiring the responsible authorities to explain the legal basis for his detention.

The appellant, Justin Williams, appealed his conviction for assault, arguing that the trial judge made unreasonable findings of fact or credibility and misapprehended his evidence.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge’s findings were open to him on the record, that there was no palpable and overriding error, and that the trial judge provided comprehensive reasons for rejecting the defences of consent and self-defence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim against his physician for alleged negligent failure to report him to the Ministry of Transportation under the Highway Traffic Act.

The court found the claim lacked expert evidence, was frivolous and without legal merit, and was not statute-barred.

The court declined to award costs against the self-represented plaintiff.

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the parties’ two children to Montreal on a temporary basis prior to trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the best interests of the children required maintaining stability and continuity in Toronto until a full trial could be held, especially given the need for reunification therapy and a pending parenting assessment.

The court also addressed several procedural motions, including the admissibility of affidavits, hearsay, and surreptitious recordings.

The respondent is charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder.

The Crown brought an application to admit discreditable conduct evidence, specifically photographs and videos of the respondent with firearms, as well as firearms and ammunition seized from two residences.

The court applied the Handy framework, balancing the probative value of the evidence regarding means, opportunity, and identity against its prejudicial effect.

The court admitted several photos and videos connecting the respondent to 9mm ammunition and handguns similar to the unrecovered murder weapon, but excluded highly prejudicial images, including those depicting an Uzi and apparent drugs.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to admit out-of-court text and Snapchat communications between alleged co-conspirators against the respondent, who is charged with first-degree murder.

The respondent argued the statements did not meet the necessity requirement because the declarants were available to testify.

The court granted the application, finding that the contemporaneous written communications were the best evidence available, the declarants were unlikely to be cooperative witnesses, and the statements met the threshold reliability and necessity requirements under the Carter test and the principled approach to hearsay.

This decision addresses a high-conflict family law dispute involving the validity of a family trust, equalization of net family property, unjust enrichment, and support issues.

The court found the Simcoe Group Trust to be a sham, ordered its assets and debts included in the Respondent’s net family property, and granted the Applicant an unequal division of property and lump sum spousal support.

The ruling also addresses the parties’ incomes, child support, and the impact of the Respondent’s financial conduct on the outcome.

This endorsement addresses a motion regarding the treatment of the parties’ Mahr (Islamic marriage contract) in the context of Ontario’s family property law regime.

The court considers whether the Mahr should be included in the net family property (NFP) calculation, the parties’ pleadings and standing, and issues of fairness.

The court rules that the Mahr is to be included as both a date of marriage and valuation date asset and debt in the NFP calculation, finding no valid withdrawal or agreement to exclude it.

The decision also addresses the parties’ ability to raise unconscionability under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act at a later stage.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder, brought a facial challenge to the Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant for his residence, alleging a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights.

He argued the ITO lacked reasonable grounds to implicate him or to believe evidence would be found at his home.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the ITO, viewed holistically, contained sufficient credible and reliable evidence—including witness descriptions matching the applicant, his association with co-conspirators, and evidence of prior conflict with the victim—upon which the authorizing justice could have reasonably issued the warrant.

This decision concerns a family law trial between Juana Gonzalez (the applicant, "Mother") and Cesar Astorga Bello (the respondent, "Father") regarding a restraining order, child and spousal support, and related financial issues.

The court found a history of family violence and coercive control by the Father, and granted a final restraining order in favour of the Mother.

The court imputed a modest income to the Father based on regular gifts received, found no entitlement to spousal support, and determined that the Father's income was too low to require child support payments.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

The court determined the equalization of net family property following a four-year marriage between Supreet Walia and Ashutosh Walia.

The applicant, Supreet Walia, sought an unequal division, alleging the respondent understated his net family property and hid assets.

The court dismissed claims against the respondent’s parents and their company, focusing solely on the spouses.

After detailed analysis of assets, liabilities, and credibility, the court found Supreet Walia entitled to an equalization payment of $19,098.74, plus pre-judgment interest, rejecting claims for unequal division based on unconscionability or family violence.

This decision concerns a dispute over the rightful board of directors of Visionary Holdings Inc. and allegations of fraud and oppression.

The court determined that the Board of Directors as it existed on March 25, 2025, is the lawful board until further order.

The court also found a prima facie case of oppressive conduct and ordered the appointment of an inspector under the Business Corporations Act.

The court granted injunctive relief restraining Fan Zhou from participating in management and 3888 Investment Group Limited from altering the board pending investigation.

The parties separated after a four-year marriage.

The wife sought an unequal division of net family property, alleging the husband hid assets, spent family money recklessly, and engaged in family violence.

The court determined the net family property of both parties, including the valuation of the husband's business, a Florida property, and various debts and loans from the husband's father.

The court found no evidence of hidden assets or reckless depletion of property, and concluded that an equal division of net family property would not be unconscionable.

The husband was ordered to pay the wife an equalization payment of $19,098.74.