Superior Court of Justice

The Crown applied to have the offender, Vezio Cardullo, declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of detention following his guilty pleas to sexual assault causing bodily harm, overcoming resistance by choking, and uttering threats.

The defence conceded the dangerous offender designation but opposed an indeterminate sentence, proposing a determinate sentence followed by a long-term supervision order.

The court found the offender to be a dangerous offender under all three pathways of the Criminal Code, citing his extensive criminal history, including prior sexual assaults, and the brutal nature of the predicate offences.

However, based on expert evidence indicating the offender's treatability and motivation for change, the court determined that a determinate sentence of 17 years' imprisonment (9.5 years net from judgment date) followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order would adequately protect the public, rather than an indeterminate sentence.

The applicants sought an order directing the registrar of personal property security to discharge PPSA registrations made by the respondent against them, arguing no valid security interest existed.

The respondent, a former employee, had registered liens after being placed on unpaid leave due to a vaccination policy.

The court found no valid security interest, granted the order to discharge the registrations, imposed a statutory penalty of $500 per applicant under the PPSA, and awarded full indemnity costs to the applicants due to the respondent's reprehensible conduct in abusing the PPSA system.

The Bank of Nova Scotia ("BNS") sought summary judgment against former spouses Danilo Milosevic and Dusica Grabovica for a joint line of credit debt.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding Mr. Milosevic's liability for the debt itself, affirming joint and several liability.

However, a genuine issue was found regarding the precise accounting of the debt, specifically the applicable interest rate and calculation of accrued interest, which was ordered to proceed to a trial of the issue.

Ms. Grabovica's liability was already set for a mini-trial concerning her signature's authenticity.

Costs were reserved to the trial judge.

The applicants brought a preliminary motion (Seepa motion) seeking an order for document production, including medical records and lawyer's files, to ascertain the validity of the deceased's will.

They raised concerns about testamentary capacity, suspicious circumstances, and undue influence.

The respondents opposed, arguing the estate was modest and privacy interests outweighed the need for production, suggesting a resulting trust claim was more appropriate.

The court found the applicants met the low evidentiary threshold for document production, noting the deceased's age, the circumstances of will preparation by a non-lawyer relative, a prior Facebook post by a respondent indicating dementia, and alleged isolation of the applicants.

The motion was granted.

The applicants sought an order declaring a condominium lien invalid and requiring its discharge, arguing they were not responsible for water damage from an overflowing toilet, that the respondent engaged in oppressive conduct (unreasonable deductible, overcharging), and that the lien was untimely.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicants responsible for the damage due to their act or omission (clogged toilet and broken shut-off valve), that the respondent's conduct was not oppressive, and that the lien was registered within the statutory timeframe.

The defendants brought a motion to compel answers to refused discovery questions and to compel the plaintiff to answer undertakings in a civil action arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The court largely granted the defendants' requests, ordering the plaintiff to provide further financial documentation and answer questions related to damages and mitigation.

The court also authorized a further examination of the plaintiff for up to 2 hours and ordered an updated affidavit of documents to be addressed later.

Costs of the motion, and a previous reserved costs order, were fixed against the plaintiff.

The applicant father sought sole decision-making and equal parenting time for the parties' six-year-old child.

The respondent mother sought sole decision-making and to maintain the father's alternate weekend parenting time.

The court found a high level of conflict, exacerbated by the mother's new partner, making joint decision-making unworkable.

The court ordered a parallel parenting regime, granting the father final decision-making over medical and religious matters, and the mother final decision-making over education and extracurricular activities.

The determination of a final parenting schedule was deferred pending updated evidence on the parties' circumstances.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment regarding a disputed legacy in her late father's will, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the traditional estate costs rules should apply, finding that the litigation was caused by the drafting solicitor's error, not the testator's actions.

Applying normal civil costs rules, the court ordered the plaintiff to bear her own costs due to her tactical conduct, ordered the drafting solicitor to bear his own costs because his error caused the litigation, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the partial indemnity costs of the estate and foundation.

The Business Development Bank of Canada moved for summary judgment against a corporate borrower and its individual guarantors for defaulted loans.

The defendants admitted the facts of the debt but presented an "incomprehensible" defence based on a "sovereign citizen" type argument regarding their legal persona and "securities" derived from their names.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, ruling that the defendants' arguments were legally untenable and did not constitute a valid defence.

Summary judgment was granted to the Bank for the full outstanding loan amounts, interest, and partial indemnity costs.

This application concerned the enforceability of Minutes of Settlement regarding the sale of a farm property within an estate.

The applicants sought to enforce the Minutes of Settlement to purchase the farm, while the respondents sought to have the property sold on the open market.

The court determined that the Minutes of Settlement constituted a contract, not a judgment.

It found that the applicants had repudiated the contract through extreme and inordinate delays in fulfilling their obligations, including failing to obtain an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) or an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) which they unilaterally imposed as conditions.

The respondents validly accepted this repudiation.

Consequently, the applicants were no longer entitled to purchase the farm property under the Minutes of Settlement, and the estate trustee was directed to sell the farm on the open market, with proceeds distributed according to the will.

The trial addressed child and spousal support, specifically determining income, compensatory spousal support entitlement, and quantum.

A key issue was the imputation of income from the father's stock options.

The court found the mother had a strong compensatory entitlement to indefinite spousal support due to her significant non-financial contributions during the marriage.

The court imputed a future income to the mother but declined to retroactively impute income from the father's unexercised stock options or unrealized vested shares, finding his reasons for deferral valid.

The court ordered specific financial disclosure, health coverage for children, and life insurance to secure support obligations.

The applicant sought to recognize and enforce a Chinese arbitral award against the respondent for unpaid automotive parts.

The respondent opposed, arguing it was denied the opportunity to present its case when the arbitral tribunal refused its request to retain appraisers, and that enforcement would violate public policy.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding the tribunal's procedural decisions did not offend basic notions of justice and the public policy exception was not met.

The court also struck out portions of the respondent's affidavit evidence as inadmissible hearsay and strongly reprimanded the applicant's counsel for uncivil courtroom behaviour.

The appellant, Gillian Boere, appealed her conviction for sexual exploitation and her 12-month prison sentence.

The trial judge had found her in a position of trust towards the 16-year-old complainant.

The appeal raised three issues: the trial judge's finding of a position of trust, the assessment of the complainant's credibility and reliability, and the dismissal of a constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum sentence as moot.

The court dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, upholding the trial judge's findings on the position of trust, the complainant's credibility, and the appropriate application of the mootness doctrine regarding the constitutional challenge.

The Crown appealed a sexual assault sentence but failed to perfect the appeal by missing deadlines for filing materials.

The Crown sought an adjournment, which the respondent opposed, requesting dismissal and costs.

The court denied the adjournment, dismissed the appeal due to the Crown's lack of diligence and non-compliance with rules, and declined to award costs against the Crown.

The applicant, Brenda Andrew, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application alleging a violation of her right to trial within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 43 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling from R. v. Jordan.

The court identified nine months of "defence delay" attributable to the applicant's repeated requests for time to retain counsel and to raise restitution funds for a failed resolution agreement.

This reduced the net delay for Jordan purposes to 34 months.

The Crown argued that the remaining delay beyond the ceiling was due to the COVID-19 pandemic backlog, an "exceptional circumstance." The court found that approximately ten months of the delay in setting the trial date was attributable to the pandemic backlog, bringing the net delay to 24 months, which is below the Jordan ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, Damaine Sitladeen, faced firearm and drug charges and brought a Charter application under ss. 8 and 9 to exclude evidence.

He alleged unlawful arrest due to racial bias, an overbroad search incident to arrest, and an unconstitutional strip search.

The court found no Charter violations, concluding that the arrest was based on reasonable grounds (missing license plate), the vehicle search was incidental to arrest and reasonable (including for identification and after drug discovery), and the strip search was justified and conducted reasonably.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The plaintiffs moved to strike the jury in a motor vehicle collision trial, alleging a breach of the rule in Browne v. Dunn by the defence.

The defence cross-examined the plaintiffs' medical experts on an alleged inconsistent symptom (fluid leaking from the ear) reported by the plaintiff to the Mayo Clinic, without having put this specific inconsistency to the plaintiff during his cross-examination.

The court found a serious breach of the Browne v. Dunn rule, which impaired trial fairness and the jury's ability to assess credibility.

The court determined that neither a correcting instruction nor recalling the plaintiff would remedy the damage, and therefore granted the motion to strike the jury.

The applicant brought a motion for financial disclosure, which was required by a jointly retained business valuator for a business valuation.

The respondent had failed to provide the requested disclosure for 16 months, offering unconvincing excuses such as lost documents or availability at the matrimonial home.

The court found the disclosure relevant, proportionate, and necessary, emphasizing that full financial disclosure is the "lynchpin" of family litigation.

The respondent's last-minute cross-motion was declined.

The applicant's motion was granted, and the respondent was ordered to pay full indemnity costs due to the unnecessary delay and expense caused by the non-disclosure.

The defendants (Paragon Security, Sam Reza, and Ronald Crabb) brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action due to her default on a security for costs order and various prior costs orders.

The self-represented plaintiff, Tanya Rebello, filed a cross-motion seeking the judge's recusal, stays of the dismissal motion (based on a certificate of stay and a Supreme Court of Canada reconsideration motion), an order for costs assessment and production of dockets, and variation of the security for costs order.

The court dismissed all aspects of the plaintiff's cross-motion, finding no basis for recusal or stays, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to a costs assessment or production of dockets.

The court granted the defendants' dismissal motion, concluding that the plaintiff had abused the court process through dilatory tactics and failure to comply with court orders, making dismissal a just sanction.

The applicant was charged with drug offences following a police search of an alleged commercial cannabis dispensary.

The police executed the search warrant using a dynamic, no-knock entry without justification.

Following the seizure of significant quantities of cannabis and cash, the police failed to file a Report to a Justice for over 17 months.

Additionally, the police failed to reiterate the applicant's right to counsel when she was faced with an additional, more serious charge.

The court found multiple serious breaches of the applicant's rights under ss. 8 and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the cumulative effect of the police misconduct warranted the exclusion of all seized evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.