Superior Court of Justice

The plaintiff was successful in resisting the defendants' motion to stay this proposed class action and sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued the costs should be reduced by the amount spent cross-examining a lawyer from a parallel British Columbia action who intervened on their own initiative.

The court agreed, finding the defendants did not solicit the affidavit and should not bear the costs of the cross-examination, awarding the plaintiff $33,500 in costs.

The Crown applied for a discretionary publication ban under s. 486.5 of the Criminal Code to protect the identity of the complainant in an intimate partner assault case.

The accused, a former political staffer involved in the "robo-calls scandal", was the subject of media interest.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Crown failed to establish a real and substantial risk to the complainant's dignity or personal safety that would outweigh the open court principle and freedom of expression.

Following divided success on cross-motions regarding discovery timetables and pleadings amendments, the parties submitted costs arguments.

The court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs of $17,499.18, noting they were successful on the most contentious issues, though the plaintiff achieved some success.

The applicant moved to strike out the respondent's answer due to her failure to comply with a previous court order requiring her to pay monetary penalties.

The respondent repeatedly failed to attend conferences, file materials, and pay costs.

The court found no basis to set aside the previous order and concluded that the respondent's egregious non-compliance justified striking her pleading, allowing the applicant to proceed to an uncontested trial.

The applicant purchased a property at a municipal tax sale and sought a declaration of ownership and an order for vacant possession.

The respondents, the former owner's daughter and her husband, refused to vacate, arguing hardship and disputing the tax sale's validity.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding the tax deed vested fee simple ownership in the applicant and extinguished any prior possessory rights.

The court ordered vacant possession and granted leave to issue a writ of possession, noting hardship is not a basis to refuse such leave.

The plaintiffs in this certified class action moved on consent for approval of a Notice of Proposed Settlement and a Pre-Approval Notice Plan.

The court found the proposed Notice appropriately informative and the pre-approval plan for dissemination consistent with the successful certification notice program.

The motion was granted, and the Notice of Proposed Settlement and the Pre-approval Notice Plan were approved.

The accused was convicted of possessing a loaded prohibited handgun found during a vehicle search.

The search followed a traffic stop where police noted evidence of cannabis.

Despite findings of Charter breaches (ss. 10(a) and 10(b)), the evidence was admitted.

The accused, a 45-year-old first offender with a strong pro-social background, community support, and health issues (sickle cell disease), sought a conditional sentence.

The court weighed the need for denunciation and deterrence against rehabilitation and systemic factors (including anti-Black racism).

Finding the accused presented no danger to the community, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The accused was charged with two counts of dangerous operation of a conveyance causing death following a motor vehicle collision.

At a blended voir dire, the accused applied under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude a statement he made to a police officer at the scene, alleging a breach of his s. 10(b) right to counsel.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the accused was questioned as a witness, not a suspect, and was not psychologically detained when he provided the statement.

The statement was also found to be voluntary.

The Receiver brought a motion under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to recover payments made by the insolvent debtor company to various parties, primarily family members and a former employee, in the year prior to bankruptcy.

The court found that the company was insolvent during the relevant period.

Payments to several family members and a non-arm's length salesperson were ordered to be repaid as they were found to be either transfers at undervalue or preferential payments.

Claims against a landlord, an independent contractor, and a long-time manager were dismissed as the transactions were either supported by consideration or were arm's length.

In this certified class action concerning business interruption insurance claims related to COVID-19 and civil authority orders, the plaintiffs moved on consent for approval of a Notice of Proposed Settlement and a Pre-Approval Notice Plan.

The court approved the notice and plan, finding them informative and consistent with the prior successful certification notice program.

The court also ordered that the action be treated as a Class Proceedings matter despite retaining a Commercial List file number.

In an ongoing insolvency proceeding, a creditor whose $25 million profit share claim was valued at zero by the proposal trustee brought a motion seeking production of pre-report communications between the trustee and the experts hired by the trustee to appraise the claim.

The moving party argued that the communications were relevant to assess whether the trustee improperly influenced the experts or if unstated communications influenced the trustee's valuation.

The court distinguished the request from a demand for the trustee's working file under s. 26 of the BIA, applying civil procedure principles of relevance to order production of the requested communications, subject to redactions for strategy or tactics.

Following a lengthy child protection trial, the two fathers sought costs against the self-represented mother.

The court found that while child protection cases are an exception to the presumptive entitlement to costs, the mother's bad faith behavior, which included a meritless constitutional challenge and breaches of court orders, warranted a costs sanction.

The court ordered the mother to pay $10,000 to one father and $5,000 to the other, payable in monthly installments.

Following a conviction for indecent assault, the applicant brought a post-conviction motion seeking a mistrial or leave to reopen the trial.

The applicant argued the court misapprehended evidence about the nature of the touching and failed to find that a prior inconsistent statement by the complainant was a deliberate lie.

The court held it did not misapprehend the evidence and declined to provide further clarification.

The court found the defence made a tactical decision at trial not to recall the witness to cross-examine on the inconsistency, relying instead on an Agreed Statement of Fact.

Applying the Palmer test and principles from Kowall, the court declined to reopen the trial or order a mistrial based on this tactical choice.

The moving party bank sought to pay surplus proceeds of $133,386.94 from a mortgage sale into court and to be extinguished from liability.

Several judgment creditors appeared seeking payment from the funds.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the bank's motion to pay the funds into court and awarded it $4,000 in costs.

The judgment creditors' requests for payment out were adjourned due to insufficient evidence regarding priorities and updated quantifications.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the order the parties entered a shed, which allegedly rendered the complainant's account impossible.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge's reasons did not hinge on the order of entry and that she was entitled to accept parts of witnesses' evidence.

The court concluded there was no misapprehension of evidence material to the outcome and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant, an equal shareholder in two companies, sought the urgent appointment of an interim receiver due to a complete breakdown in her relationship with the other equal shareholder.

The companies were deadlocked, in default on a $5.5 million loan, and facing multiple lawsuits.

The Court granted the motion, finding a strong prima facie case of oppression and deadlock, irreparable harm to the companies' assets, and that the balance of convenience favoured a neutral, court-supervised officer to manage the assets pending the final application.

The Court declined to exempt ongoing lawsuits against the companies from the receivership stay at this early stage.

The respondent father moved to vary a temporary consent order to change the child's school registration and sought costs for the applicant mother's abandoned motion.

The court found that a material change in circumstances was not strictly required, but the father met the threshold.

However, the court determined it was in the child's best interest to remain at her current school and dismissed the motion.

The court awarded costs to the father for the abandoned motion on a substantial indemnity basis.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, while the defendant argued for a nominal amount or no costs.

The Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs, finding the defendant's motion was not unreasonable but noting the plaintiff's success and the importance of the issues.

The court reduced the plaintiff's claimed hours for being excessive compared to the defendant's time.

The plaintiff mortgagor brought an urgent interlocutory motion to set aside a Notice to Vacate and a default judgment obtained by the defendant mortgagee.

The mortgagor argued the mortgage was unenforceable because the funds were used to pay out prior mortgages that were part of a money laundering scheme orchestrated by her pastor, of which she was unaware.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the default judgment, finding no arguable defence on the merits, no plausible excuse for the default, and no evidence that the mortgagee was involved in or should have been aware of any alleged fraud or money laundering.

As the default judgment stood, the injunction motion was also dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to add new allegations and causes of action, and to strike certain engineering reports from evidence.

The motion was brought 13 years after the action was commenced and 15 years after the underlying events.

The court dismissed the motion to amend, finding that the plaintiffs' inordinate and unexplained delay gave rise to a presumption of non-compensable prejudice that they failed to rebut.

Furthermore, the proposed new claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that discoverability was a triable issue.

The motion to strike the engineering reports was dismissed as premature, with admissibility left for the trial judge.