Superior Court of Justice

In a CCAA proceeding, the applicant Fund brought a motion to amend the Amended Discharge and Dissolution Order to facilitate a final distribution to shareholders.

The Fund's transfer agent brought a cross-motion seeking a third-party release from liability related to the distribution, arguing the shareholder data might be unreliable.

The court granted the Fund's motion and dismissed the cross-motion, finding that the transfer agent had not made a meaningful contribution to the restructuring and had instead delayed the process, failing to meet the established test for third-party releases.

The applicant brought an application under the Road Access Act to close an access road to the respondents, proposing to erect gates that would allow other property owners access while excluding the respondents.

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that closure was reasonably necessary to prevent substantial damage or injury to his property interests.

Furthermore, the court held that public interest considerations, including emergency and utility access, weighed in favour of keeping the road open.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant estate trustees applied to pass their accounts.

The respondent beneficiary objected, arguing the trustees breached their fiduciary duties by failing to act with an even hand and depleting the trust capital for the benefit of one beneficiary (the respondent's father) to the detriment of the others.

The court found that the will did not relieve the trustees of their duty to act impartially.

The trustees failed to consider the interests of the other beneficiaries, failed to make necessary inquiries regarding the necessity of the encroachments, and improperly allowed trust capital to be used to satisfy the father's personal child and spousal support obligations.

The application to pass accounts was dismissed, and the trustees were ordered jointly and severally to repay $145,000 to the trust.

The offender, a youthful first-time offender, was found guilty of penetrative anal sexual assault against his intimate partner.

The court weighed the profound psychological harm to the victim and the aggravating factor of intimate partner violence against the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, and rehabilitative prospects.

Applying the principles for sentencing youthful first-time offenders, the court imposed a sentence of three years' imprisonment along with ancillary orders.

The applicants brought an urgent motion seeking interim co-guardianship of their father and the appointment of section 3 counsel.

The court previously directed the Public Guardian and Trustee to appoint section 3 counsel.

On the continuation of the motion, the court granted certain relief on consent, including the provision of medical records and powers of attorney.

However, the court declined to order a capacity assessment or grant the applicants unfettered access to the father's medical providers until the newly appointed section 3 counsel had an opportunity to receive instructions and make submissions on his behalf.

Rogers appealed a partial arbitral award regarding its distribution agreement with Glentel, which it co-owns with Bell.

The arbitrator had ruled that Rogers could not require Glentel to offer a Rogers Bank credit card bundled with telecommunications services, nor pay incremental commissions for it, as it was not an 'ancillary service' under the agreement.

The Superior Court determined that the appellate standard of review applies to statutory appeals under the Arbitration Act, 1991, following Vavilov.

Applying this standard, the court found no extricable errors of law or palpable and overriding errors in the arbitrator's contractual interpretation or jurisdictional scope.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, a contractor and his company, sued the defendant homeowner for unpaid invoices relating to a residential construction project.

The defendant argued the parties had a fixed-price contract and counterclaimed for deficiencies and delay.

The court found that due to substantial changes in the scope of work without agreement on costs, the contract evolved into a quantum meruit agreement.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $113,642.70 for the fair market value of the work performed and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim, finding she breached the contract by refusing to pay and failed to provide the plaintiffs an opportunity to correct any alleged deficiencies.

The accused, residing in a hotel converted into a homeless shelter, was subjected to a warrantless search of his unit by police responding to an anonymous 911 call about a firearm.

The officers entered the unit, handcuffed the semi-nude accused, and discovered a handgun.

The accused brought a pretrial application to exclude the evidence, alleging violations of his rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the police lacked exigent circumstances for the warrantless search, unreasonably handcuffed the accused during investigative detention, breached his right to counsel by failing to hold off questioning, and relied on an invalid search warrant.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to the egregious nature of the multiple Charter breaches.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of theft under $5000 after taking the complainant's phone as collateral for an unpaid loan.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted that a conditional discharge was appropriate, noting the offender's lack of a prior record, his employment, and the severe immigration consequences a conviction would entail.

The court accepted the joint submission, finding that a conditional discharge was in the offender's best interests and not contrary to the public interest.

The plaintiff moved to not enter judgment in accordance with a jury verdict that dismissed his personal injury and racial profiling claims arising from an arrest by mall security for trespassing.

The plaintiff argued there was no evidence to support the jury's findings that the defendants had reasonable grounds to arrest him, did not use racial stereotypes, used reasonable force, and that he suffered no damages.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants led 'some evidence' on each issue, including expert testimony on use of force and medical causation, which the jury was entitled to accept.

Judgment was ordered to be entered in accordance with the jury's verdict.

The plaintiff law firm obtained an ex parte order for a writ of possession over a property to enforce a guarantee for unpaid legal fees.

The guarantor, a non-party to the original action, moved to set aside the order on the basis that the law firm failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts, specifically an outstanding stayed appeal and the debtor's bankruptcy, which were relevant to the escrow conditions of the consent.

The court found that the law firm did not scrupulously disclose all relevant facts to the associate judge.

The motion to set aside the writ of possession was granted, and the law firm's cross-motion to sell the property was dismissed without prejudice.

The Trustee in bankruptcy applied to set aside transfers of approximately $16.2 million from bankrupt borrower corporations to related non-borrower corporations under s. 96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that the transfers were made at undervalue, rendered the bankrupts insolvent, and were made with the intent to defraud, defeat, or delay creditors.

The court rejected the respondents' unsupported claims that the transfers were prepayments of future joint venture profits.

Judgment was granted declaring the transfers void and holding the recipient corporations and the individual controlling siblings jointly and severally liable as privies to the transfers.

The respondent father brought a motion to change seeking to retroactively vary a 2010 child support order and rescind accumulated arrears.

The original order imputed an income of $35,000 to the father due to unemployment.

The father argued that medical issues prevented him from obtaining meaningful employment since 2010.

The court found the medical evidence insufficient and noted the father's lack of effort to find work, concluding there was no material change in circumstances.

The court also declined to rescind the arrears, finding the father had not established a complete inability to pay now or in the future.

The motion to change was dismissed.

The young person, convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to the maximum youth sentence, appeared for an automatic annual review of his sentence under s. 94(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Crown sought to confirm the sentence, while the defence sought a conversion of the remaining custodial portion from secure to open custody.

The court found that the young person had made significant progress in rehabilitation, completed his high school diploma, and exhausted available programming in secure custody.

The court ordered that the remaining custodial portion of the sentence be served in open custody to facilitate his reintegration into the community.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to amend his Response to a Motion to Change to include relief regarding child support and financial disclosure, and to set aside a prior order that allowed the respondent to amend her pleadings.

The court dismissed the motion to amend, finding that the applicant's concerns related to the enforcement of an existing disclosure order, which should be pursued separately under Rules 1(8) and 26 of the Family Law Rules rather than delaying the pending parenting issues.

The court also dismissed the motion to set aside the prior order, concluding that the applicant's inability to file responding materials would not have changed the outcome.

Costs of $2,700 were awarded to the respondent.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation causing bodily harm, failure to stop after an accident, and operation while impaired causing bodily harm after driving the wrong way down a street and striking a pedestrian.

The accused argued he lacked the requisite mens rea because he was in a postictal amnestic state following an epileptic seizure.

The court found the accused's testimony lacked credibility and rejected the defence expert's definitive opinion, but concluded the totality of the evidence raised a reasonable doubt about whether the accused suffered a seizure and was in a postictal state at the time of the collision.

The court also found the evidence of alcohol impairment inconclusive.

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.

The plaintiff and defendants brought various motions in a motor vehicle accident tort claim.

The plaintiff sought to compel answers to a refused discovery question regarding the defendant Uhaul's pre-litigation investigation.

The court dismissed this request, finding the investigation was protected by litigation privilege as its dominant purpose was in contemplation of litigation.

The defendants Uhaul and Manbauman sought leave to amend their Statements of Defence to allege that the plaintiff and his brother engaged in a staged collision for insurance fraud, based on surprising discovery evidence from Manbauman.

The court granted leave to amend, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff.

The defendant brought a request under Rule 2.1 to stay or dismiss the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff failed to file written submissions in response to the court's notice.

The court found the statement of claim to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as it contained no material facts or specifics of the relief claimed, consisting only of a list of terms and a $10 million claim.

The statement of claim was dismissed.

The applicants sought to appeal or set aside a Partial Final Award of an arbitrator that granted the respondents a 50% constructive trust interest in a commercial property adjacent to a jointly owned shopping centre.

The arbitrator had found an ad hoc fiduciary duty despite the Co-Tenancy Agreement explicitly excluding partnership and fiduciary obligations.

The Superior Court of Justice granted leave to appeal, finding that the arbitration agreement did not preclude appeals on questions of law.

The court set aside the relevant portions of the award, holding that the arbitrator committed extricable errors of law by ignoring the unambiguous exclusionary language of the agreement and exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding an unpleaded claim for an ad hoc fiduciary duty.

The accused, charged jointly with sexual assault, applied to exclude evidence referencing a third man who was allegedly present during the offence but whose charges were withdrawn.

The applicant argued the evidence would cause moral and reasoning prejudice.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the probative value of the evidence—such as explaining the complainant's narrative, the police investigation, and the DNA results—significantly outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The court also noted it would be impractical to excise the references and that any prejudice could be addressed through jury instructions.