Superior Court of Justice

The plaintiff corporation purchased a 37-acre rural property from the defendant corporation, whose sole director was the individual defendant husband.

The defendant wife alleged that the husband had previously forged her signature to transfer the property into his corporation's name and that the sale to the plaintiff was a fraudulent conveyance intended to defeat her claims in their ongoing family law proceedings, contrary to a non-depletion order.

The court found that while the conveyance by the husband was fraudulent, the plaintiff was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice under s. 3 of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The plaintiff paid good consideration, based on expert appraisal evidence of the property's current rural zoning, and had no actual or constructive knowledge of the husband's fraudulent intent or the family law non-depletion order.

The court also held that the plaintiff was protected by the doctrine of deferred indefeasibility under s. 78(4.2) of the Land Titles Act and the indoor management rule.

The wife was ordered to remove the non-depletion order from title.

Following a bifurcated trial where the plaintiffs were awarded damages for the defendants' breach of a commercial lease, the plaintiffs sought costs.

The plaintiffs had made an offer to settle that they beat at trial.

The court applied Rule 49.10 and awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, fixing total costs at $906,704.33.

In supplementary reasons following a trial judgment, the court determined the proper calculation of damages owed to the defendant on a 2019 blanket mortgage.

The plaintiff, who had recently made an assignment into bankruptcy, submitted calculations based on an unsworn email attempting to re-argue facts and introduce new evidence.

The court rejected the plaintiff's submissions as improper and accepted the defendant's calculations, fixing damages at $1,018,848.74.

The offenders, foster parents to two Indigenous children, were found guilty of first degree murder of one child and unlawful confinement, assault with a weapon, and failure to provide necessaries of life to the other.

The court sentenced them to the mandatory life imprisonment without parole for 25 years for the murder.

For the offences against the surviving child, the court imposed sentences of 3 years, 2 years, and the maximum 5 years respectively, to be served consecutively to each other and concurrently with the life sentence.

The court emphasized the extreme vulnerability of the victims and the profound breach of trust, prioritizing denunciation and deterrence.

Sentencing following convictions for sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching arising from repeated sexual abuse of a young child by a parental figure in the home.

The court applied the modern sentencing framework for child sexual offences, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, the serious bodily and psychological harm caused by digital penetration, repeated abuse, breach of trust, and foreseeable long-term impacts.

The sexual assault count was conditionally stayed under the rule against multiple convictions for the same delict.

A global sentence of six years' imprisonment was imposed, together with substantial ancillary orders, and the victim surcharge was waived for undue hardship.

The appellant pleaded guilty to impaired operation of a conveyance and was sentenced to a $2,000 fine and an 18-month driving prohibition, which exceeded the Crown's position.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the sentencing judge failed to provide proper notice of considering a higher sentence and erred by not receiving documentary evidence of his counselling and community service.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge provided adequate notice at the outset of the hearing and that the failure to physically receive the documents did not impact the sentence, as the judge accepted counsel's representations regarding the mitigating factors but found the aggravating factors warranted a higher penalty.

The respondent brought a motion for interim child and spousal support following the breakdown of a 15-year marriage.

The parties enjoyed an exceptionally high standard of living, with family wealth including a $200 million business fund and multiple luxury properties.

The applicant argued the motion was premature due to an impending $90 million equalization payment and contested the respondent's proposed budget as inflated.

The court found the motion was not premature and the respondent was entitled to support.

Given the applicant's income far exceeded the $350,000 ceiling, the court departed from a strict application of the guidelines, awarding $200,000 per month in interim spousal support and $75,000 per month in interim child support, plus $27,000 monthly for nannies.

Claims for retroactive support were deferred to trial.

The plaintiffs invested $17.8 million with a mortgage broker, who fraudulently used the funds to repay an unauthorized overdraft at TD Bank caused by a cheque kiting scheme.

The plaintiffs sued TD Bank for negligence, knowing receipt, conversion, and unjust enrichment.

The court dismissed the negligence claim, finding TD Bank lacked actual knowledge of the fraud and thus owed no duty of care.

However, the court found TD Bank liable for knowing receipt, conversion, and unjust enrichment, as the bank had constructive knowledge of the fraud due to multiple red flags requiring enhanced due diligence, and the tort of conversion was held to apply to funds on deposit.

TD Bank was ordered to pay damages of over $16.3 million.

The defendant in a construction lien action brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer undertakings and questions taken under advisement during examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff argued the defendant required leave under the former Construction Lien Act to bring the motion.

The court held that leave was implicitly granted by the discovery plan and was necessary to expedite the resolution of the dispute.

Applying the principles of proportionality and relevance, the court ordered the plaintiff to answer the majority of the outstanding questions, noting that undertakings must be honoured once given.

The court declined to order answers to questions regarding document authenticity and the plaintiff's opinion on a report prepared by the defendant's consultant.

The applicant father was successful in a Hague Convention application resulting in an order for the return of the parties' son to California.

Following the decision, the respondent mother went into hiding with the child, necessitating police enforcement.

The father sought full recovery of his legal fees and travel expenses.

The court found the mother's conduct amounted to bad faith and awarded the father $78,535 in litigation costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

Additionally, the court awarded the father $26,500 for travel and accommodation expenses incurred to locate and recover the child pursuant to Article 26 of the Hague Convention, for a total costs award of $105,035.

The Crown applied to designate the offender as a dangerous offender following convictions for human trafficking, sexual assault with a weapon, and related offences against an intimate partner.

The court reviewed the offender's criminal history, institutional misconducts, and psychiatric assessments.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the requisite pattern of repetitive or persistent aggressive behaviour, noting the offender's cognitive vulnerabilities, treatable substance use disorder, and strong community support.

The court dismissed the dangerous offender application, designated the offender a long-term offender, and imposed a total sentence of 10 years' imprisonment minus pre-sentence credit, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The moving parties, who were class members in a certified class action regarding defective heater-cooler devices, sought an extension of time to opt out of the class action after the deadline had passed.

They had recently discovered they contracted a severe infection from the device and wished to pursue an individual action.

The court applied the Johnson test, finding that while the moving parties established excusable neglect for missing the deadline, they failed to demonstrate that a late opt-out would not prejudice the defendants.

The defendants had already reached a settlement in principle in the class action based on the known number of opt-outs, and allowing a late opt-out would vitiate the integrity of the class action process.

The motion was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after stabbing the victim during a planned home invasion robbery motivated by a desire to steal drugs.

The offender, who had a lengthy criminal record and was bound by probation and weapons prohibition orders, acted as a lookout but entered the home armed with a knife to assist his co-perpetrator.

The court weighed significant aggravating factors, including the home invasion context and the offender's record, against mitigating factors such as his guilty plea, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, and family support.

The offender was sentenced to 8 years and 6 months in the penitentiary, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The court considered the serious aggravating factors, including the combination of drugs and a handgun, and the offender's prior related youth record.

The court also weighed significant mitigating factors, notably the guilty pleas in the face of triable Charter issues and the deplorable conditions the offender experienced during 855 days of pre-sentence custody.

A global sentence of 5 years was imposed, reduced to 1 year and 5 months after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion to oppose the confirmation of a referee's report granting partial summary judgment, the defendant sought costs of $40,872.16 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued costs should be deferred to the final disposition of the reference or reduced.

The court declined to defer costs, noting that costs should generally be awarded for every step of the litigation process.

The court fixed costs at $35,000, finding this amount closer to the reasonable expectations of the parties given the complexity and importance of the issues.

The moving defendants sought an order under Rule 6.01 to have the condominium corporation's complex breach of contract and professional negligence action tried together with ten simplified procedure tort actions brought by individual homeowners arising from the same roof leak incident.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that despite the common incident, the actions involved different causes of action, different levels of complexity, and were at vastly different stages of litigation.

The court held it would be unjust to delay the homeowners' advanced simplified proceedings to allow the corporation's more complex action to catch up.

The plaintiff obtained default judgment against the defendant on a claim for a personal guarantee of a corporate loan.

The defendant moved to set aside the default judgment, arguing he was only a minority shareholder and had received assurances he would not be personally liable.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendant failed to adequately explain his delay in defending the action and moving to set aside the judgment.

Furthermore, the court held the proposed defence lacked an air of reality given the clear, unconditional terms of the signed guarantee.

Costs endorsement following a will challenge and a dependant support claim.

The applicant was unsuccessful in challenging the 2018 Wills but partially successful in his dependency claim.

The court applied the McGrath framework to determine if public policy considerations warranted costs being paid from the estate.

The court found public policy applied to the dependency claim but not the will challenge.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis, with the successful respondent on the will challenge receiving $200,000 and the applicant receiving $125,000 for the dependency claim.

After a 40% estate contribution to the applicant's costs and a set-off, the applicant was ordered to pay a net amount of $125,000 to the respondent.

The applicant minority shareholder sought remedies for alleged oppression by the respondents, claiming they concealed conflicts of interest in related-party transactions.

The parties agreed that the respondents should buy out the applicant's shares, but disputed the valuation and whether the applicant was subject to Canadian economic sanctions against Russia due to its principals' ties to a sanctioned Russian entity.

The court found no oppression, as the applicant knew or ought to have known of the overlapping ownership.

The court set the buyout value based on the midpoint of the experts' market approaches and applied a 10% minority discount.

However, finding considerable evidence that the applicant might be subject to sanctions, the court ordered that no payment be made until Global Affairs Canada rules on the sanctions issue.

The accused was charged with historical sexual offences, including indecent assault and gross indecency, alleged to have occurred approximately 48 years ago during a cadet program.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the complainant's uncorroborated testimony.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found material inconsistencies and evidence of reconstructed memory in the complainant's account, while the accused's evidence was candid and raised a reasonable doubt.

The court concluded that the Crown failed to displace the presumption of innocence and acquitted the accused on both counts.