Superior Court of Justice

The offender, Kevin Nguyen, was sentenced following convictions for drug trafficking and firearms offences, including possession of over 1.2 kilograms of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The sentencing judge considered aggravating factors such as the offender's prior criminal record involving drugs and weapons, and the dangerous combination of firearms and commercial-level drug operations.

Mitigating factors included the offender's steps toward rehabilitation while in custody, strong family support, and the exceptionally harsh conditions of pre-sentence detention he endured at the Central East Correctional Centre.

The court imposed a global sentence of eight and a half years, reduced by 1,214 days of enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving 1,888 days left to serve.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following the release of the Canada RFD Decision in the Fontaine litigation.

The court considered whether the unsuccessful Respondents should be awarded costs, despite not prevailing on the motion.

The court reviewed the parties’ written submissions and the relevant legal principles, ultimately concluding that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a costs award to the unsuccessful party.

The court declined to order costs of the hearing.

The decision concerns an application under section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) for approval of a plan of arrangement by The Cannabist Company Holdings (Canada) Inc. and 16834434 Canada Inc., opposed by Murchinson Ltd. (on behalf of certain noteholders).

The court granted the final order approving the arrangement, which restructures the company’s senior notes, and dismissed Murchinson’s related oppression application.

The reasons address the fairness and reasonableness of the arrangement, the appropriateness of third-party releases, and the standing of Murchinson to bring an oppression claim.

The court dismissed two motions brought by the defendant, Y.Y.G.M. SA (“YYGM”): a motion for summary judgment on the basis of expired limitation periods, and a motion to dismiss or stay the action as an abuse of process due to alleged multiplicity of proceedings.

The court found genuine issues requiring trial regarding the applicable limitation periods for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract claims, including the enforceability of Connecticut choice of law clauses and the factual circumstances of the oral and written agreements.

The court also rejected the abuse of process argument, finding no parallel proceedings against YYGM and no substantial prejudice.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

Hussein Harb was found guilty by a jury of kidnapping and attempted extortion of Mohammad Algunaid, related to a scheme to recover money lost in a Ponzi scheme.

The court considered the facts, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the principle of parity, noting that Harb played a lesser role than his co-accused, Kozak, who inflicted the violence.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence, followed by 18 months probation, with strict house arrest and ancillary orders, finding this fit and proportionate given Harb’s lesser culpability and lack of prior record.

This decision concerns a motion to change child support and section 7 expenses brought by the paternal grandparents of J.G. against his mother, Kristy Ferreira.

The court found that the grandparents, having demonstrated a settled intention to treat J.G. as their child, are "parents" under the Family Law Act and thus subject to the Child Support Guidelines.

The court determined the appropriate sharing of retroactive and ongoing section 7 expenses, the child’s contribution to post-secondary costs, and the repayment schedule for retroactive support, emphasizing proportionality to household incomes and the best interests of the child.

The court allowed the appeal of Arlene Hastick from a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming the renewal of her Community Treatment Order (CTO) under the Mental Health Act.

The court found that the Board denied Ms. Hastick procedural fairness by repeatedly preventing her from asking relevant questions of her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Banik, and by relying on evidence about her 2016 hospitalization while refusing to allow her to challenge or clarify that evidence.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted Board.

The plaintiff brought an action against his former wife alleging misappropriation of joint property and claiming a resulting trust in a property located at 177 Morningview Trail.

The parties had previously entered into a Separation Agreement in Florida in 1999, which divided their assets and released all claims.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found no evidence to support the plaintiff's allegations of misappropriation or his claim to an interest in the property.

The documentary evidence confirmed the defendant as the sole beneficial owner of the property, and the plaintiff failed to produce any written agreement to the contrary as required by the Statute of Frauds.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed in its entirety.

The decision addresses a motion by the defendants to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) registered by the plaintiff, Michael Vojvodic, on property owned by the defendants.

The court considers the relevant statutory and discretionary factors, including the uniqueness of the property, the existence of alternative claims for damages, the presence of a willing purchaser, and the relative harm to the parties.

The court finds that damages would be a satisfactory remedy, the property is not unique, and the harm to the defendants outweighs the harm to the plaintiff if the CPL is discharged.

The CPL is ordered discharged, vacant possession is to be provided by the plaintiff, and sale proceeds are to be held in trust pending further order.

This endorsement addresses a media request for the release of exhibits from the sentencing hearing in R. v. Ritchie.

The court permitted the release of all exhibits to the media, subject to privacy protections for inmates and the victim’s child, and restrictions on the publication of certain sensitive materials, including medical and psychiatric reports.

The order was made with the consent of all parties involved.

This decision concerns the penalty for civil contempt by the defendants, who breached a Mareva order by failing to disclose real property in Spain and denying ownership under oath.

The court finds that the appropriate sanction is to prohibit the defendants from dealing with the Spanish property and to require that net rental income from the property be paid to the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice until personal liability is determined.

The court also awards full indemnity costs to the plaintiffs for the contempt motion, with a set-off for costs on the motion to set aside the Mareva injunction.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action as frivolous under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, The Estate of Brajak James, repeatedly failed to articulate a justiciable issue in its requisition forms, despite multiple opportunities and judicial guidance.

The court found the claims to be unintelligible, lacking legal merit, and in some cases nonsensical or based on irrelevant religious texts.

The action was dismissed without costs.

This decision certifies a class action against the Province of Ontario regarding the issuance of "Birth Alerts" by Ontario children's aid societies (CASs), but declines to certify the action against the CASs themselves.

The court finds that the claims against the CASs suffer from the "Ragoonanan problem"—the lack of a representative plaintiff with a claim against each defendant—and that the CASs acted independently, not collectively.

The action against Ontario, however, is certified on the basis of negligence and breaches of sections 7 and 15 of the Charter, as the Province had oversight authority and failed to act to stop the practice despite being able to do so.

The court sets out the certified class, common issues, and clarifies the preferable procedure for such claims.

The court considered a motion by Hansa Mortgage Investment Corporation for a writ of possession and the discharge of a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) registered by the Fuamba family, who had resided in the property for over 15 years.

The court reviewed the legal and equitable factors for discharging a CPL, including the uniqueness of the property, the parties’ intentions, the presence of alternative claims for damages, and the balance of convenience.

The court found that while the property was unique to the Fuambas, the lack of equity and their agreement to vacate after July 15, 2025, rendered the CPL of little practical utility.

The court granted leave to issue a writ of possession (execution delayed until after July 15, 2025) and ordered the CPL discharged upon registration of a transfer under power of sale.

The court sentenced David Morias for offences including possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a prohibited device, and possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The decision reviews the aggravating and mitigating factors, the impact of systemic anti-Black racism, and the appropriate sentencing range for mid-level fentanyl traffickers.

The court imposed a global sentence of 90 ⅔ months after credits for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions, with ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture.

The decision addresses two competing motions for the appointment of representative counsel for investors in a receivership proceeding involving Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc. The court reviews the procedural background, the need for representative counsel, and the competing proposals from Aird & Berlis LLP and Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP.

The court ultimately appoints Aird & Berlis LLP as representative counsel, finding their approach and fee structure preferable for efficiency, transparency, and certainty.

The court considered an application by the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of France for the extradition of Prasanna Nallalingam to stand trial in France for murder and attempted murder.

The court found that a properly instructed jury could conclude that Nallalingam possessed the requisite mens rea for manslaughter and assault causing bodily harm, based on circumstantial evidence of his planning, provision of weapons, and command of the attack.

The committal order was granted under the Extradition Act.

The applicant husband sought an order to cancel a Designation of Matrimonial Home registered by the respondent wife on a Toronto condominium solely owned by him.

The parties permanently resided in Iran during their marriage and only visited Canada as tourists, staying in temporary rentals rather than the subject property.

The court found that the property was an investment property rented to third-party tenants and was never occupied by the parties as their family residence.

Accordingly, the court declared the property was not a matrimonial home under the Family Law Act and cancelled the designation.

This costs decision follows the dismissal of an application by 2811230 Ontario Limited to delete an Order to Comply from title to its property.

The court awards elevated costs to the City of Niagara Falls, finding the application was without merit and brought for an improper motive, and that the applicant's conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding.

This decision addresses a defence motion for a mistrial after a jury note alleged unprofessional conduct by defence counsel, raising concerns about jury impartiality.

The court reviews the legal principles governing mistrials, including the presumption of jury impartiality, the test for reasonable apprehension of bias, and the discretion to discharge jurors or declare a mistrial.

The court finds that the fairness of the trial has been compromised and grants the motion for a mistrial, emphasizing that such a remedy is reserved for the clearest of cases where no other remedy will suffice.