Superior Court of Justice

The defendant, Fletcher’s Fields Limited, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs, Robert Llewellyn Jenkins (as trustee for the Estate of Samuel Harrison Ball) and the Estate of Samuel Harrison Ball.

The court found that the plaintiffs did not have sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a costs award and had not demonstrated impecuniosity or a good chance of success on the merits.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to post $20,000 as security for costs and awarded $10,000 in costs to the defendant, with both amounts payable within 60 days.

The decision concerns a motion by the Defendants to amend their Statement of Defence in an estate dispute regarding whether a $160,000 transfer from the deceased to his cousin was a loan or a gift.

The court finds that the proposed amendments do not constitute a withdrawal of admissions, and grants leave to amend under Rule 26.01, as no non-compensable prejudice to the Plaintiff is established.

The ruling clarifies the distinction between factual and legal admissions in pleadings and the applicable test for amendments.

This endorsement addresses an uncontested motion to change a spousal support order.

The respondent, Otto Budziak, sought to terminate his spousal support obligations and recalculate or eliminate arrears.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to a significant reduction in Mr. Budziak’s income and terminated his ongoing support obligation effective March 1, 2025.

However, the court declined to address arrears or withdraw the order from the Family Responsibility Office without further evidence and proper procedure.

The matter of arrears was adjourned, and the applicant, Audrey Duval, was to be served with this endorsement and any new materials.

The court considered an application to exclude drug evidence on the basis of alleged breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The applicant, Zachary Telford, was arrested for impaired operation after being found asleep in his vehicle, and subsequently charged with possession of fentanyl and other drugs.

The court found that there were reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and that the subsequent searches and demands were lawful.

The only Charter breach identified was a 20-minute delay in facilitating access to duty counsel, which was found to be minor and not to justify exclusion of the evidence.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The court considered a motion by self-represented lead plaintiffs in a proposed class action challenging workers’ compensation regimes across Canada.

The plaintiffs sought an order requiring the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) to pay their legal costs, or alternatively, the appointment of amicus curiae or permission for the lead plaintiffs to represent the class.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action for failure to comply with Rule 15, which requires representative parties to be represented by counsel.

The court held that compliance with Rule 15.01(1) is mandatory and that the plaintiffs could not represent the class.

The court declined to appoint amicus curiae or grant an interim advance cost award, finding no exceptional circumstances or evidence of financial need.

The action was stayed pending the plaintiffs’ retention of counsel.

The decision addresses a motion by David Peter McMath and Darcy Loyie to stay their motion for leave to appeal a summary judgment decision dismissing their individual claims for additional damages arising from administrative segregation, pending the outcome of other test cases.

The court applies the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay and finds that while there is a serious question to be tried, the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favours a stay.

The motion is dismissed.

The plaintiff, Esther Gerstel Inc. (EGI), brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant, Denise Michelle Scott, for payment of amounts due under a mortgage and for possession of the mortgaged property.

The only issue was the amount owing, as the defendant acknowledged some amount was due.

The court found this was an appropriate case for summary judgment, holding that the principal and interest claimed by EGI were established, but that two renewal fees were not.

The court ordered payment of the principal and interest, but not the disputed renewal fees, and granted EGI possession of the property, with a 45-day period for the defendant to pay before enforcement.

The case concerns whether an assessor appointed under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 must provide disclosure of materials collected and reviewed prior to a capacity assessment, and whether the assessor and the Consent and Capacity Board considered the correct factors relevant to the management of property.

The court held that there is no legal obligation for the assessor to provide such disclosure in advance, and that the Board did not err in its application of the legal test for capacity.

The appeal was dismissed.

The College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) sought a court order validating its by-laws and articles, which had been amended over a decade without compliance with the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act (CNCA) due to erroneous legal advice.

The court found that the CFPC had failed to hold required separate class votes for membership changes, rendering its constating documents improperly enacted.

The Resident Doctors of Canada, while generally supporting the application, sought restoration of voting rights for family medicine residents.

The court held that section 288(4) of the CNCA provided broad remedial powers to validate the documents and to reclassify family medicine residents as voting members.

The application was granted, validating the CFPC’s by-laws and articles nunc pro tunc and restoring voting rights to family medicine residents.

The plaintiffs alleged that Maria Surovova and her company, Maria Mortgage Services Inc., engaged in a mortgage churning scheme, inducing the plaintiffs to take out a series of mortgages and transfer the proceeds to Surovova under the pretense that the funds would be applied to their mortgages.

Instead, Surovova misappropriated the funds for personal use.

The court found Surovova liable for civil fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, awarding the plaintiffs $1,666,059.13 in damages and $215,603.52 in costs.

The court dismissed Steven Howell’s defamation action against Tracy Cullen, Manager of Licensing at the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO), as frivolous and vexatious.

The court found that Ms. Cullen was protected by statutory immunity for actions taken in good faith within the scope of her employment, and that Mr. Howell’s claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court also fixed costs against Mr. Howell in the amount of $15,000.

This costs endorsement addresses the entitlement and quantum of costs following a family law trial between Christine Anonby and Erik Anonby.

The court finds the mother was the successful party on the primary parenting issue and partially successful on property issues.

The court awards the mother $85,000 in costs, finding her billings reasonable and the father’s litigation conduct not unreasonable except for the division of chattel.

The decision reviews the legal framework for costs in family law, the conduct of the parties, and the proportionality and reasonableness of the costs sought.

The decision concerns an estate dispute between Glen Last and Craig Last (personally and as joint Estate Trustee for the Estate of Jacqueline Last), with TD Canada Trust as a respondent.

Glen alleged that Craig misappropriated significant estate assets and failed to account for his management of the estate, seeking a reduction of Craig’s share and other relief.

The court found that Craig failed to provide a proper accounting, drew an adverse inference, and ordered a substantial reduction of Craig’s share of the estate, as well as costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

On a s. 522 bail application arising from two second-degree murder charges stemming from a double stabbing, the applicant sought release on a strict surety plan with house arrest and GPS monitoring.

The court held that the Crown's circumstantial case was strong on unlawful killing, but the evidentiary record raised significant triable issues on mens rea and supported a viable partial defence of provocation, making manslaughter convictions more likely than murder convictions.

The court found detention was not necessary under the primary or secondary grounds, given the applicant's lack of record, his conduct in the community for over two years before arrest, and the strength of the release plan.

On the tertiary ground, the court held continued detention would undermine, rather than maintain, confidence in the administration of justice because the applicant had already spent substantial time in harsh pretrial custody and was likely in a time-served position for the offences he was most likely to be convicted of.

The court considered an application by Mustafa Elawad to exclude evidence obtained during a traffic stop and subsequent search, on the basis of breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(a) and (b) of the Charter.

The court found that the police engaged in racial profiling, that the stop was not justified by the stated reason of obscured plates, and that the subsequent search and seizure were unlawful.

The evidence of drugs and a firearm was excluded, and Mr. Elawad was acquitted of all charges.

The accused, Matthew Christopher Reis, was charged with possession of a Schedule I substance (crystal methamphetamine) for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The trial turned on whether Mr. Reis had knowledge and control of the drugs found in a brown purse he was holding during a medical emergency involving another individual.

The court found that while Mr. Reis had control of the purse, the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he had knowledge of its contents.

Mr. Reis was acquitted.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sought a garnishment order against H & M Flooring Inc. to recover a judgment debt owed by Hussein El Hossaini.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, finding that RBC failed to provide sufficient evidence of the amount, if any, owed by the garnishee to the debtor.

The court emphasized that a failure to respond to a garnishment notice does not create a presumption that the full amount claimed is owed, and that reliable evidence of the debt is required before a garnishment order can be made.

This costs decision follows the successful application by Deborah Lynn Ferris for the removal of her brother, Christopher Ferris, as co-estate trustee of their late father's estate.

The court reviews the parties' submissions and the applicable legal principles, ultimately awarding full indemnity costs to the applicant, with a blended order requiring Christopher Ferris to pay 75% of the applicant's costs and the balance to be paid from the estate.

The court finds Christopher Ferris's conduct to be worthy of sanction and characterizes it as reprehensible and outrageous.

The court considered a motion to strike all claims against Patricia France, the former President of St. Clair College, in an action by Waseem Habash for breach of contract, defamation, injurious falsehood, and related torts.

The court partially granted the motion, striking only the claim for intentional interference with contractual and/or economic relations, but granted leave to amend the claim for inducing breach of contract.

The court found that the pleadings for defamation and injurious falsehood were sufficient to proceed, as was the claim for inducing breach of contract (subject to amendment), and that there was an arguable basis for personal liability against Ms. France.

The court considered a motion by the defendants to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim as vexatious and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff, Susan Lorraine Jones-Moore, brought a civil action against her former spouse and related corporate defendants, alleging a range of torts including stalking, invasion of privacy, sexual harassment, libel, and slander, much of which overlapped with issues previously litigated in family court.

The court found that the claim was largely an attempt to re-litigate matters already resolved or statute-barred, and that the pleadings were deficient, speculative, and unsupported by material facts.

The claim was dismissed as vexatious and an abuse of the court’s process.