Superior Court of Justice

The applicant sought to exclude evidence obtained by police following a fatal motor vehicle collision, alleging breaches of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The court found that the warrantless seizure of airbag control module (ACM) data was lawful under s. 489(2)(c) of the Criminal Code, as police had reasonable grounds to believe it would provide evidence of an offence.

Similarly, the production order for medical records and search warrant for blood vials were deemed valid, as reasonable grounds existed to suspect impairment.

However, the search warrant for the applicant's cell phone was found to be overly broad and the subsequent search unlawful, infringing s. 8.

Applying the Grant factors, the court admitted the ACM data, medical records, and toxicology reports, but excluded all evidence obtained from the cell phone search due to the seriousness and impact of the breach.

The plaintiff, Patrick Addai, brought an action for damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant, Kelly Parkinson, moved for a determination that the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary loss was barred under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence regarding the causation and permanence of his alleged injuries (shoulders, wrists, dental, neck, back, headaches, psychological) to be inconsistent and unreliable.

The court preferred the defendant's expert evidence and concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove that his injuries constituted a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function caused by the accident.

Consequently, the defendant's motion was granted, and the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary loss was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to discontinue the action against several defendants, amend the statement of claim to identify the defendant Clarke as both operator and owner of the vehicle, and extend/validate service on Clarke.

The court dismissed the motion to extend time and validate service on Clarke, finding the plaintiff's explanations for the significant delay (inaccurate MTO search, firm staffing issues, and COVID-19) insufficient.

The court noted the prejudice to the defendant due to the inability to conduct a prompt investigation.

The order to discontinue against the other named defendants was granted.

This caselaw file indicates that the reasons for the decision in R. v. Simpson Sweeney, 2024 ONSC 5993, are not available at this time.

No details regarding the nature of the proceedings or the outcome are provided.

Michael Malabre was convicted following a jury trial of possessing cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possessing the proceeds of crime under $5,000.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of five to seven years, while the defence requested a conditional sentence of 18 to 24 months, citing pre-trial custody conditions and the effects of anti-Black racism.

The court found a conditional sentence inappropriate, imposing a sentence of four years and nine months incarceration.

The judge considered aggravating factors including the dangerous nature and quantity of drugs (fentanyl), the commercial scale of the trafficking, evidence of prior sales, and the mixing of drugs.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, difficult upbringing, and harsh pre-trial detention and stringent bail conditions.

The court found insufficient evidence to connect anti-Black racism to the offender's moral blameworthiness in this specific case.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) to strike the plaintiff's defamation claim, arguing that the allegedly defamatory statements were protected by absolute privilege as they were made in preparation for contemplated litigation.

The plaintiff opposed and also had a separate motion for particulars.

The court first addressed the defendants' motion, admitting an affidavit from one of the defendants.

Applying the five factors for absolute privilege in pre-litigation communications, the court found that the communication was protected by absolute privilege, as it was directly concerned with actual or contemplated judicial proceedings and made for the purpose of obtaining evidence from a limited audience.

Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion, striking the Statement of Claim without leave to amend.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following an eight-day trial in a family law matter consolidated with a civil action.

The Applicant (Hardeep Singh Nijher) sought a simple divorce, while the Respondent (Manpreet Dhaliwal) sought spousal support, equalization, and damages.

The trial decision granted the Respondent a small equalization payment but dismissed all other claims.

The Applicant and Defendants (Applicant's family and a friend) sought full indemnity costs.

The court found the Respondent engaged in bad faith conduct by making false allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault, and by initiating a multiplicity of proceedings.

While full indemnity costs were deemed appropriate due to bad faith, the court reduced the total quantum awarded to account for the duplication of counsel for the Applicant and Defendants, and the prior resolution of a separate jewelry claim.

The applicant developer brought a motion under Rule 49.09 to enforce a purported settlement agreement regarding a land dispute that was blocking a subdivision development.

The applicant argued that the parties had agreed on the essential terms of a land sale in exchange for the withdrawal of the respondents' objection.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there was no mutual intention to be bound because several terms proposed by the respondents in a counteroffer, including the closing date, right of assignment, and registration of the agreement, were never accepted by the applicant.

The Bank of Montreal (BMO) sued corporate and individual defendants for $277,827.96, representing funds mistakenly deposited into the defendants' accounts and subsequently withdrawn.

The defendants failed to participate in the lawsuit after delivering a statement of defence.

The court found the defendants liable on the grounds of restitution for money paid under mistake of fact, and alternatively, conversion and unjust enrichment, ordering repayment of the funds, costs, and interest.

The applicants sought to enforce a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) provision requiring an Independent Auditor (BDO) to determine a "Reverse Earn-Out Calculation." The respondents argued that other disputes under the SPA needed court adjudication first, claiming BDO lacked necessary information and that the applicants breached earn-out covenants.

The court held that the expert adjudication by BDO should proceed expeditiously as agreed in the SPA, as it is a distinct process from the respondents' claims for breach of covenants, which can be pursued in a separate action for indemnity.

The court clarified BDO's mandate is limited to financial determination, not factual investigation of covenant breaches, and dismissed the respondents' attempt to have the court direct BDO on information use.

The applicants sought an order appointing section 3 counsel for the respondent, Joan Horneman, under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, due to her alleged incapacity to instruct counsel.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction because Ms. Horneman already had legal representation.

The court further held that even if jurisdiction existed, appointing section 3 counsel would be inappropriate given Ms. Horneman's undisputed incapacity to instruct counsel, as section 3 counsel cannot act without instructions and their communications are privileged, making it difficult to assess the reliability of any information about the person's wishes.

The decision emphasized the distinction between the role of section 3 counsel and a litigation guardian.

K.W. was found guilty of two counts of invitation to sexual touching and two counts of sexual interference against his girlfriend's sister, B.B., over a four-year period starting when B.B. was eleven.

The Crown requested an 8.5-year global custodial term, while the Defence sought 4 years.

The court found the Crown's proposed term disproportionate and the Defence's term insufficient.

Considering aggravating factors such as abuse of trust, predatory behavior, and victim impact, balanced against mitigating factors like employment, family support, and background hardships, the court imposed a global custodial sentence of 5 years, with all counts served concurrently.

Ancillary orders were also issued with a variation for K.W.'s own children.

The moving defendants, 1171328 Ontario Ltd. and Living Properties Inc., brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay under Rule 24.01.

The action, arising from flooding incidents in 2013, was commenced in 2015, and no significant steps were taken by the plaintiff to advance it since 2018.

The court found the delay to be inordinate (7.5 years from commencement, 6 years of inactivity), inexcusable (no cogent explanation provided despite multiple opportunities), and prejudicial to the defendants (rebuttable presumption of prejudice not overcome, actual prejudice due to lost documents and unavailable witnesses).

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff's action was dismissed with costs.

The Plaintiffs, landlords, brought a motion for summary judgment against the Defendant tenant, seeking damages for unpaid rent, utilities, and a settlement fee paid to a prospective purchaser due to the tenant's refusal to vacate the property.

The Defendant's counsel had withdrawn, and she did not appear at the motion.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial, granted judgment to the Plaintiffs for $115,112.22, and dismissed the Defendant's counterclaim for $1,000,000.00 due to lack of evidence.

Costs were awarded to the Plaintiffs.

The plaintiff, David Steele, sued the defendant, Victor Bicknese, for injuries sustained after falling through broken wooden slats in the defendant's barn.

The plaintiff, a 74-year-old employee, suffered an odontoid fracture (cervical spine injury) and other chronic symptoms.

The court found the defendant breached his duty of care under section 3 of the Occupiers' Liability Act by failing to maintain a reasonably safe premises and having no system for inspecting or repairing broken slats, which were known to break regularly.

The court found no contributory negligence by the plaintiff, despite his awareness of the broken slats, due to the defendant's fundamental obligation to provide a safe workplace and the impracticality of avoiding hazards while working.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for lost income and general damages for pain and suffering.

The applicant, VBI Vaccines Inc., sought court approval for a sale transaction structured as a reverse vesting order (RVO) to its secured lender, K2 HealthVentures, as part of its CCAA insolvency proceedings.

The motion also sought collateral relief, including releases for various parties and the ability to sell residual assets up to $5 million without further court approval.

The court granted the motion, finding that the RVO was necessary and met the stringent Harte Gold factors, as well as the traditional Sound Air factors.

The RVO was deemed essential due to the debtor's highly regulated industry and the non-assignability of its intellectual property and government licenses, making it the only viable option to maximize value compared to a bankruptcy scenario.

The court also approved the releases and the limited authority to sell residual assets, noting the Monitor's support and the lack of opposition from stakeholders.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a costs order, arguing his costs submissions were improperly rejected by the court office and thus not considered by the trial judge.

The respondent opposed, citing procedural non-compliance and failure to meet the high threshold for leave to appeal costs orders.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate strong grounds for appeal, particularly as he did not make reasonable efforts to ensure his submissions reached the trial judge.

The court also declined to award costs for the present motion due to the respondent's unreasonable and inflammatory litigation conduct.

The defendants requested the court to consider dismissing the plaintiff's application under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the application appeared frivolous, vexatious, or abusive, as it failed to identify a claim, state facts, or identify relief sought.

The court directed the registrar to issue a Form 2.1A notice to the plaintiff, stayed the action pending the written hearing, and prohibited further filings except the plaintiff's submissions.

The accused, S.F., was tried on multiple criminal charges including sexual assault, threatening bodily harm, assault, mischief to computer data, voyeurism, distributing an intimate image, and failing to comply with a recognizance.

The court found the complainant's evidence to have reliability issues.

S.F. was acquitted on the sexual assault counts, as the Crown failed to prove a lack of subjective consent or vitiated consent under the "position of power" provision (s. 273.1(2)(c) of the Criminal Code), which the court interpreted narrowly.

Acquittals also occurred for threatening bodily harm, assault, most mischief counts, voyeurism (due to lack of surreptitiousness), and distributing an intimate image (due to hearsay).

S.F. was found guilty on one count of mischief to computer data and one count of failing to comply with a recognizance.

The plaintiff, CCPS Land Development Ltd., brought a motion for summary judgment, alternatively to strike the defendant's (Capital Sewer Services Inc.) statement of defence and counterclaim, or to compel discovery.

The action concerned damages for alleged breach of a commercial lease.

The court dismissed the summary judgment and striking pleadings requests, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly regarding the condition of the premises, responsibility for repairs, the overholding period, and the relationship between the plaintiff and a subtenant (Uniflo).

The court did grant the request for a discovery timetable and ordered the defendant to pay $6,000 in costs to the plaintiff.