Superior Court of Justice

The appellant, Brandie Spagnolo, appealed her conviction for two counts of disobeying a court order under section 127(1) of the Criminal Code.

She argued that the underlying Family Court order was invalid because the Children’s Aid Society commenced its protection application in the wrong court.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the proceedings were properly before the Family Court and that the collateral attack rule prevented the appellant from challenging the validity of the order in this context.

The appeal was dismissed.

This costs endorsement addresses the appropriate amount of costs payable by the defendant to the plaintiff following a wrongful dismissal action under the simplified procedure.

The court reviews the parties’ conduct, the complexity of the case, the offers to settle, and the applicable rules, ultimately awarding the plaintiff the maximum costs permitted under Rule 76.12.1, plus reasonable disbursements, due to the defendant’s unreasonable settlement position and litigation conduct.

The Applicants, a group of Hudson’s Bay Company entities, sought an extension of the stay of proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and authorization to make certain distributions to secured creditors.

The Court granted both orders, finding the Applicants acted in good faith and with due diligence, and that the proposed distributions were appropriate in the circumstances.

The decision addresses concerns raised by RioCan regarding the timing of distributions in light of the Neiman Marcus Transaction, but concludes that the distributions should proceed.

The applicant mother sought a divorce, retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, an equalization payment, and a vesting order for the matrimonial home.

The respondent father's answer regarding financial issues had been struck due to his persistent failure to provide financial disclosure.

Proceeding by way of an uncontested trial, the court drew an adverse inference against the father and imputed his income at $400,000 per year.

The court ordered the father to pay $448,400 in retroactive child support, $479,367 in retroactive spousal support, a $66,417 lump sum for prospective spousal support, and an equalization payment of $503,411.86.

To satisfy the spousal support and equalization obligations, the court granted a vesting order transferring the father's sole title in the matrimonial home to the mother absolutely.

This decision addresses the costs consequences following a successful summary judgment motion by the plaintiff, R & P Petroleum Inc., for payment of outstanding invoices.

The court considered the parties’ written submissions and awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, with an elevated amount due to a threatening and abusive email sent by or on behalf of the defendant, Ishvinder Singh Virk.

The court found the defendants’ conduct, including the email, warranted an award of $75,000 in costs to the plaintiff, to be paid jointly and severally by the defendants.

The decision addresses a motion by the applicant, Ms. Hill-Reyes, to have the added respondent, Ms. Pena, declared in default for failing to serve and file an Answer in a high-conflict family law proceeding involving custody and adoption issues.

The court reviews the procedural history, the barriers faced by the self-represented respondent living abroad, and the repeated opportunities given to participate.

Ultimately, the court finds Ms. Pena in default and imposes the consequences set out in subrule 1(8.4) of the Family Law Rules, barring her from further participation except as a witness.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel answers to refusals and questions taken under advisement from the examination for discovery of the defendants’ representative.

The court considered the scope of discovery in a class action, focusing on whether the questions related to certified common issues.

The court ordered answers to certain questions and refusals to others, based on relevance and proportionality to the common issues.

No costs were awarded, as both parties had almost equal success.

This decision resolves financial and parenting issues between former partners Susannah Spencer Hutton and Kenneth Wakely, focusing on primary parenting, occupation rent, child support, fines, and costs.

The court awards primary parenting of the parties’ son to the applicant, orders occupation rent and lump sum child support to be paid from the sale of the jointly owned home, and imposes fines and costs on the respondent for non-compliance with court orders.

The court dismissed Bellsam Contracting Ltd.'s motion to oppose confirmation of Associate Justice Robinson’s interim report in a construction lien dispute.

The decision confirms that the December 17, 2018 budget document was the governing contract, not a later, higher-priced quote.

The court found no error in the Associate Justice’s findings of fact or law, and emphasized the deference owed to such findings on review.

Bellsam’s new legal argument regarding conditional acceptance was rejected as it was not raised at trial and lacked evidentiary support.

This decision concerns an anti-SLAPP motion brought by Pierre Roy, a student and local resident, against Sheridan Retail Inc., a developer redeveloping Sheridan Mall in Mississauga.

The developer sued Roy for defamation, inducing breach of contract, interference with economic relations, and trespass after he raised environmental, social, and safety concerns about the redevelopment.

The court found the lawsuit to be a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) aimed at silencing Roy’s public expression.

The court dismissed the developer’s claim, refused to allow the developer to “prune” its claim to trespass only, and awarded Roy $25,000 in damages and full-indemnity costs.

The court granted a motion to strike a third-party claim brought by Roy D’Mello against the plaintiff’s lawyers, Neil Colville-Reeves and Reeves Richarz LLP, in a complex mortgage and property litigation.

The third-party claim sought contribution and indemnity, as well as damages for alleged champerty and maintenance.

The court found that claims against a plaintiff’s lawyer, acting as agent, cannot be sustained where the alleged conduct is attributable to the plaintiff.

The court also held that the facts pleaded did not support a claim for champerty or maintenance.

Leave to amend was denied.

This decision addresses a 4.5-day uncontested trial regarding retroactive and prospective child support, special expenses, and related relief for the parties' 17-year-old son.

The court struck the applicant's pleadings for non-compliance with court orders and deadlines, allowing her to participate only on parenting and financial statement issues.

The court found the applicant underemployed, imputed income to her, and ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, as well as a proportional share of special expenses.

The court also addressed security for child support via life insurance and travel consent for the child.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion to remove the defendants' lawyers of record.

Both parties filed extensive written costs submissions that significantly exceeded the page limits and formatting requirements set out in the court's previous ruling.

Rather than rejecting the non-compliant materials or deciding the matter on the excessive written record, the court ordered that the issue of costs be resolved through a two-hour oral hearing.

The parties were prohibited from filing any further materials without leave of the court.

The respondent husband moved for partial summary judgment or a decision on a question of law regarding whether a pay equity award received by the applicant wife should be included in her net family property.

The court found that the portion of the pay equity award attributable to pre-separation wages, less amounts for injury to dignity, interest, and post-separation work, forms part of the applicant’s net family property.

The court ordered the applicant to pay costs to the respondent.

The court sentenced O’Neil Freeman for two counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, following a joint submission.

The decision reviews the factual background, the parties’ submissions, and the applicable sentencing principles, including the “gap principle” and the impact of systemic disadvantage.

The court imposed a sentence of one day plus 19.5 months’ credit for pre-sentence custody for one count, and a conditional sentence of two years less a day for the other, with strict house arrest and curfew conditions, recognizing the mitigating factors of rehabilitation, dated record, and hardship.

The court considered a motion by the Applicants, estate trustees under a will, seeking to revoke a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee Without a Will granted to the Respondent, Denise Mayers, and for various injunctive and preservation orders.

The court found that Denise had fraudulently obtained the certificate despite knowing of the existence of a will, and granted most of the relief sought, including a Mareva injunction, a certificate of pending litigation over certain property, and a preservation order.

The court also awarded substantial indemnity costs against Denise due to her conduct.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from a scooter accident on a municipal road.

The court found that the plaintiff, who was self-represented and did not appear or file materials, failed to establish that the road was in a state of non-repair or that any non-repair caused the accident.

The municipality established statutory defences under the Municipal Act, 2001, including that the pothole was within the minimum maintenance standards.

The action was dismissed and costs awarded to the defendant.

This decision concerns an uncontested family law application in which the applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, child support, and permission to travel and renew documentation for the child without the father's consent.

The court found in favour of the mother on all substantive issues, imputing income to the father for child support purposes, awarding retroactive and ongoing child support, and dismissing the spousal support claim without prejudice due to lack of evidence.

The court also permitted the mother to travel with the child and renew government documentation without the father's consent, given the father's lack of involvement and history of family violence.

The court dismissed the main action against Roger Rameshwar Rajkumar, finding no basis to pierce the corporate veil and impose personal liability for environmental damage to property.

The court granted the counterclaim of Rita Josomatee Rajkumar and 1526381 Ontario Inc. against Gloria Rajkumar, Superior Independent Medical Assessment Centre Ltd., and Simac Canada Inc., finding that Rita was constructively dismissed and entitled to 18 months’ notice and damages.

The decision addresses the legal standards for piercing the corporate veil, the distinction between employee and independent contractor, and the requirements for constructive dismissal and reasonable notice.

This decision concerns an appeal by James Brent Maxwell from an arbitration award regarding child support, retroactive child support, and costs, following a lengthy family law dispute with Lynne La Fontaine.

The court reviews the arbitrator’s findings on income imputation, retroactive support, and the application of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, particularly regarding support for adult children attending post-secondary education away from home.

The court finds that while the arbitrator made a reviewable error by failing to conduct a proper analysis under s. 3(2)(b) of the Guidelines for adult children living away from home, most other findings were within her discretion.

The appeal is allowed in part, with directions for further submissions on quantification if the parties cannot resolve the issue.