Superior Court of Justice

The accused was tried on historical allegations of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault involving his former partner’s child.

Applying the W. (D.) framework, the court held that although peripheral memory gaps by a child witness do not necessarily undermine credibility, significant reliability concerns arose from the complainant’s need to repeatedly refresh memory and from a material detail about a locked door surfacing only in cross-examination.

The court found that prior disclosures to family members could not bolster credibility as prior consistent statements.

Even if the accused’s testimony were not believed, the complainant’s evidence left a reasonable doubt.

Acquittals were entered on all counts.

The applicants sought damages for water infiltration in their condominium unit against the vendor and the condominium corporation.

They alleged the vendor knew of the leakage prior to closing and the corporation delayed necessary repairs.

The vendor brought a counter-application for the release of a $75,000 holdback.

The court found that the vendor acted reasonably and responsibly upon discovering new leakage just before closing, and that the condominium corporation also acted reasonably and expeditiously within the constraints of the Tarion New Home Warranty Program, as the water infiltration was a complex, sitewide issue.

The applicants failed to provide sufficient evidentiary basis for their claimed damages and procedurally altered their requested relief at the hearing.

The application was dismissed, and the $75,000 holdback was ordered to be returned to the vendor.

The reasons for this decision are not available at this time.

The applicant, Liam Stinson, convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and arson causing bodily harm, brought an application for the trial judge to recuse himself from sentencing.

The application was based on an email sent by the investigating officer to the judge's judicial assistant, which the applicant argued created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The judge noted that the email contained no sentencing submissions or requests for a particular outcome, and that the judge had acted ethically by consulting the Judicial Ethics Committee and disclosing the email to counsel.

The court emphasized the trial judge's unique advantage in sentencing due to having presided over the trial.

Joseph Pauze was found guilty of possession of crystal methamphetamine and possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused was stopped for a traffic violation, and a subsequent search incident to arrest revealed the narcotics.

Pauze admitted to possessing crystal methamphetamine for personal use but denied knowledge of the fentanyl, claiming it belonged to the car's owner, a known drug dealer.

The court rejected Pauze's testimony as illogical and untrustworthy, finding that he was in actual possession of the fentanyl.

Given the significant value of the fentanyl and the presence of drug paraphernalia, the court inferred that the possession was for the purpose of trafficking, leading to a conviction on all counts.

This case file indicates that the reasons for the decision are not available at this time.

The case involves the Crown (R.) and Silvani, heard in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario.

Due to the lack of available reasons, the specific nature of the proceeding (e.g., trial, sentencing) cannot be definitively determined from the content.

The defendant, Christian Almendares, was charged with two counts of sexual assault and sexual exploitation.

The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the defendant.

Applying the principles from R. v. W.D., the court found that the defendant's evidence created a reasonable doubt.

The court also expressed concerns about the overall reliability and context of the complainant's evidence.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and the charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with multiple drug and weapons offences following the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

Police located four individuals in the home, along with significant quantities of narcotics, drug paraphernalia, cash, and firearms.

The court applied the principles of constructive possession to determine whether the accused had knowledge and control of the seized items.

The accused was found guilty of possessing the items located in his personal bedroom, including a rifle under the bed, but was acquitted of possessing items found in common areas or in the immediate vicinity of other occupants.

The applicants sought to appoint Derek Stanley Metcalfe and Richard Cotnam as estate trustees.

The respondent consented to his own removal but opposed the appointment of Mr. Metcalfe, alleging conflict of interest and bias.

The court found that while there was friction between the parties, it did not rise to a level that would prevent the proper execution of the trust or show a lack of impartiality.

The court appointed the applicants' proposed trustees and awarded partial indemnity costs of $19,600 payable by the respondent personally.

The applicant father sought the return of the parties' four-year-old child to the United Kingdom under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, alleging wrongful retention by the respondent mother in Canada.

The court applied the hybrid approach to determine habitual residence, finding it to be the UK.

However, the court found that the father, through his actions, had consented and acquiesced to the child's retention in Canada, thereby triggering an exception under Article 13(a) of the Convention.

Consequently, the application for the child's return was dismissed, and the court assumed jurisdiction over the matter.

The plaintiff landlord sued the defendants for outstanding rent.

The defendants counterclaimed for damages due to excessive and irregular distress.

The court found the tenant liable for base rent and limited additional rent due to promissory estoppel, as the landlord's conduct indicated an intention not to rely on strict lease terms.

However, the court also found the landlord liable for significant damages for irregular and excessive distress, as the landlord failed to comply with the Commercial Tenancies Act regarding appraisal and inventory.

Ultimately, after set-off, the landlord was ordered to pay the tenant.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The defendants, as the successful party, sought partial and substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs argued for no costs, asserting divided success and impecuniosity.

The court found the defendants were entirely successful, rejected the plaintiffs' arguments regarding divided success and impecuniosity, and awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants, totaling $177,123.68.

Two personal injury actions, arising from a 2014 collision, were commenced in North Bay.

The court, concerned about judicial resource shortages and the impact of R. v. Jordan timelines on civil matters, initiated discussions about transferring the actions to Ottawa, where the accident occurred.

The plaintiffs consented to the transfer, but the defendant opposed, arguing that a formal motion was required and that the transfer would be unfair given a prior decision to strike a jury notice to expedite the trial in North Bay.

The court, exercising its discretion under Rule 2.03 to dispense with the formal motion requirement, ordered the transfer, emphasizing that the interest of justice, particularly judicial availability in Ottawa, outweighed the defendant's objections to ensure the timely disposition of these long-standing cases.

The plaintiff, Adam Provis, brought a motion to validate service of his statement of claim and extend the time for service nunc pro tunc to October 27, 2023, and to strike the defendants' limitation period defence.

The case arose from a failed real estate transaction where the defendants, Ramadhani Makele and Tantine Mkombozi, were the intended purchasers who failed to close.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing prejudice due to the delay in service and that their limitation defence should be determined at trial.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding that the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to serve, the delay was short, and the defendants failed to demonstrate prejudice caused by the delay.

The court also struck the limitation defence, confirming that the claim was commenced within the two-year limitation period by issuance of the statement of claim.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of Christine Decaire on a mischief charge related to the Freedom Convoy.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred in applying principal and party liability and inferential reasoning from circumstantial evidence.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent engaged in overt acts of mischief or formed a common intention to block streets, distinguishing her conduct from other protest-related cases.

The garnishee, Vale Canada Limited, brought a motion to dismiss garnishment proceedings initiated by the plaintiffs on a "with prejudice" basis.

The plaintiffs consented to a "without prejudice" dismissal.

The court found that the garnishment proceedings had been ongoing for approximately 23 years, during which the plaintiffs consistently failed to comply with court orders, including disclosure orders, an order for security for costs ($85,000), and a previous costs order ($6,653.65).

Citing the plaintiffs' significant and unexplained delays, their flouting of court orders, and the abuse of process, the court granted Vale's motion, dismissing the garnishment proceedings with prejudice.

The applicant, CCI Bioenergy Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction to compel the respondent, Veolia Water Canada, Inc., to continue an agreement for organic waste processing services and to reinstate two of CCI's employees, following an explosion at the facility and subsequent termination of services by Veolia.

The court applied the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions, finding the injunction sought was mandatory, requiring a strong prima facie case.

The court determined that CCI failed to establish a strong prima facie case or demonstrate irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favored Veolia due to the breakdown of trust and potential safety issues.

The motion for injunction was dismissed, but a sealing order for CCI's financial statements and personal employee information was granted.

Costs were awarded to Veolia.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking ongoing and retroactive child support, and contributions to section 7 expenses, based on an imputed income for the respondent father.

The respondent, a taxi driver, disputed the income and provided incomplete financial disclosure.

The court found the respondent had not adequately complied with disclosure obligations, imputed an annual income of $60,000 for 2024 and $21,500 for the preceding three years, and ordered ongoing and retroactive child support accordingly.

The court also ordered the respondent to contribute to past and ongoing section 7 orthodontic expenses and awarded the applicant full indemnity costs due to the respondent's failure to provide timely and full disclosure.

The defendants moved to strike the jury notice in an action for malicious prosecution.

The plaintiff, a former lawyer, alleged that the defendants (Law Society of Ontario and its counsel) had maliciously prosecuted him since 2002, leading to the revocation of his license.

The defendants argued the case was too complex for a jury due to intertwined legal and factual issues from multiple prior proceedings and potential admissibility disputes.

The court dismissed the motion, applying a "wait and see" approach, finding that the issues, including concepts like causation, reasonable and probable grounds, issue estoppel, and malice, could be explained to a jury.

The court also noted the defendants' delay in raising complexity and the summary trial format simplifying evidence handling.

The decision emphasized the substantive right to a jury trial and that complexity concerns often do not materialize as anticipated.

This is a costs endorsement following a decision where solar energy suppliers (the "Suppliers") successfully argued that their "Optimizations" did not constitute "Contract Facility Amendments" under their Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) contracts with the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO).

The Suppliers sought approximately $2 million in partial indemnity costs, while the IESO proposed around $817,000.

The court, applying Rule 57 factors, found the issues complex and high-stakes for both parties.

Despite the Suppliers' higher learning curve and efficient litigation, the court deemed their claimed hours disproportionate.

The court fixed the aggregate partial indemnity legal fees at $1 million, plus disbursements of $270,000 (less specific deductions), finding this amount fair, reasonable, and proportionate given all circumstances.