Superior Court of Justice

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's negligence claim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff alleged the municipality negligently issued a building permit in 1981 without conservation authority approval, leading to foundation failure in 2017.

The court found the claim was discovered objectively by 2013 when the plaintiff obtained an engineering report identifying unsuitable fill, and that the 15-year ultimate limitation period had also expired.

The court rejected arguments that the limitation period was tolled by a municipal claims process or by fraudulent concealment, granting summary judgment and dismissing the action.

This is Part 10 of a series of joint decisions in multi-jurisdictional class actions (Ontario and Quebec).

Class Counsel sought further revisions to the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol (DIIP), specifically to increase the $6,000 costs cap for Track 2 claims to $12,000, and to add a clause about Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applying to Track 2/3 claims, and to apply ordinary costs rules for contested Track 2 motions.

The court approved the latter two unopposed requests but denied the request to increase the costs cap, emphasizing proportionality and the need to simplify procedures rather than increase costs.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of one count of sexual assault.

The sentencing judge found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender administered THC to the victim to render her compliant.

After weighing the aggravating factors, including the presence of the victim's young child, against the offender's positive rehabilitation prospects, the court rejected a conditional sentence.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court sentenced the offender to 18 months' incarceration along with ancillary orders.

The accused, Marcus Lyons, was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault.

In this sentencing decision, the court addressed whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused administered THC to the victim, finding it was not proven due to inconclusive expert testimony.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the presence of the victim's two-year-old son during the assault and the accused's prior convictions for violence, alongside mitigating factors such as his good work record and family ties.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence, the court imposed an 18-month term of incarceration, a 20-year sex offender registration order, an order to provide DNA samples, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

In a consolidated class action, Class Counsel sought partial indemnity costs for their work on a Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol (DIIP).

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the costs for DIIP development had been prepaid as part of prior counsel fee approvals.

The decision emphasized that DIIP creation is a necessary and collaborative aspect of class proceedings, not an event warranting additional 'success' costs, and clarified that prior judicial statements about future payments referred to costs already accounted for.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent was a vexatious litigant under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, along with an order prohibiting further proceedings without leave and requiring payment of outstanding costs.

The court reviewed the respondent's history of litigation, including persistent unsuccessful appeals, failure to pay costs, abusive conduct, and meritless applications.

The court found the respondent's conduct to be vexatious, abusive, and a drain on judicial resources, granting the applicant's request for a vexatious litigant declaration and associated relief.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for impaired driving, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding the arresting officer's grounds for arrest and observations of the appellant's driving.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, including the officer's testimony about tire tracks, the appellant's belligerent behaviour, and information from civilian callers.

The court found that the trial judge did not misapprehend the evidence and properly resolved inconsistencies in the testimony.

The appeal was dismissed.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of two counts of aggravated assault as a party to a planned shooting in downtown St. Catharines that injured the intended target and five innocent bystanders.

The Crown sought a 15-year sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court rejected the conditional sentence, finding the offender's moral blameworthiness high despite his non-shooter status.

After applying the Bellissimo range, considering mitigating factors, and applying credits for totality, Duncan, and Summers, the court imposed a net sentence of 5 years in a federal penitentiary.

The respondent father (W.F.) sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following his successful motion for an interim variation of a parenting order, which granted him primary residency of the child E.F. The applicant mother (S.F.) opposed costs, arguing divided success and financial hardship.

The court found the respondent presumptively entitled to costs, noting the applicant's position was inconsistent with the Voice of the Child Report.

Balancing the respondent's success, settlement offers, and the applicant's ability to pay, the court fixed costs at $1,200, payable by the applicant within 120 days.

The accused, Jiapeng Wu, was charged with second-degree murder.

The central issue at trial was whether he was a party to the murder under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code, specifically if he subjectively knew that murder was a probable consequence of the planned robbery.

The Crown argued that the accused orchestrated the violent robbery and foresaw the probable use of a firearm and murder.

The defence contended that the accused only intended robbery, not murder.

The court found the Crown's principal witness credible despite prior inconsistencies.

Considering the accused's history of violent currency exchange robberies, his role as organizer, his arming of accomplices with loaded handguns, and his post-offence conduct, the court concluded that the accused subjectively knew murder was a probable consequence.

The accused was found guilty of second-degree murder.

This decision addresses the admissibility of three exculpatory statements made by the accused, Umar Zameer, who is charged with first-degree murder.

The court ruled that two spontaneous statements made at the scene of the arrest were admissible under the *Edgar* exception to the rule against prior consistent statements, but only if the accused testifies and is subject to cross-examination, and not for their truth.

A third statement made 12 hours later at the police station was deemed inadmissible due to lack of spontaneity and failure to meet any hearsay exception.

The court also clarified the distinction between *res gestae* and the *Edgar* exception, explicitly declining to follow a previous inconsistent decision (*R. v. Tavares*).

The defendants sought a third adjournment of two scheduled motions, including their cross-motion to dismiss the action or set aside default judgment, and the plaintiffs' motion to lift a stay on a writ of seizure and sale.

The defendants argued for the adjournment to file a new expert report after their initial expert's cross-examination raised concerns about the adequacy of the opinion.

The plaintiffs opposed, citing repeated delays and the defendants' attempt to "patch up" their case with new evidence.

The court denied the adjournment, emphasizing the need for finality, the waste of judicial resources, and the impropriety of introducing new evidence after cross-examination to address perceived weaknesses, aligning with the principles against case-splitting.

This decision, Part 9 of a series in a multi-jurisdictional class action, addresses bitterly contested motions by both the Attorney General of Canada and Class Counsel to revise the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol (DIIP).

The dispute centered on the scope of reply position statements for Track 2 claims.

Canada sought to limit replies strictly to mitigating factors and causation rebuttal, while Class Counsel argued for broader replies to new issues raised by Canada.

The court denied both parties' specific requests, instead directing a revision to allow Canada a right of sur-reply if a claimant files a reply, and imposing an increased payment to the Manager/Expert in such instances.

The ruling aims to ensure fair, efficient, and proportionate litigation while discouraging procedural abuses by either party.

The plaintiffs, a mother and son, brought an action against the defendant, the mother's separated spouse, regarding the ownership of an investment property.

The plaintiffs claimed the defendant held his registered 33 percent interest in trust for the son, who allegedly contributed to the purchase and renovations.

The defendant relied on a marriage contract that stipulated ownership governed property division and counterclaimed for partition and sale, an accounting of rental income, and the return of personal belongings.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' trust claims, finding the marriage contract binding and the son's contributions unproven.

The court granted the defendant's counterclaim for partition and sale, an accounting of rental income from 2017 onwards, and the return of his personal belongings.

This motion concerned an application by the respondent father to vary a divorce order, seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence for the children, and termination of child support.

The children had been removed from the applicant mother's care by the Children's Aid Society due to concerns about their well-being, including isolation, lack of schooling, and the mother's mental health, and were subsequently placed with the father.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that the requested parenting orders were in the children's best interests, considering the father's ability to provide stability and the mother's past conduct, which included alienating the children from their father and failing to provide adequate care.

The motion was granted, varying the divorce order to reflect the father's sole decision-making and primary residence, and terminating child support.

The plaintiff, a consultant, brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant for unpaid fees related to securing debt capital financing.

The parties had an agreement for a 10% fee on amounts raised through the plaintiff's introductions.

The defendant obtained $2,000,000 in financing but failed to pay the agreed-upon fees and was noted in default.

The court applied the test for default judgment, finding the plaintiff established liability based on deemed admissions and affidavit evidence.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for the loss of bargain, pre-judgment interest, costs, and post-judgment interest.

The court issued supplementary reasons regarding costs for an interim injunction motion.

The defendants sought to revisit the costs award, arguing that an offer to settle the motion should attract costs consequences under Rule 49.

The court found that the defendants' offer was insufficient as it did not fully address the plaintiff's concerns, particularly regarding non-solicitation, and that the plaintiff had obtained what it sought.

The court dismissed the defendants' request to revisit the costs, affirming the original costs award to the plaintiff.

The moving party, a creditor, brought a motion to admit fresh evidence on its appeal from the trustee's disallowance of its proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding.

The trustee opposed the motion, arguing that the parties had previously agreed to limit the appeal record and that admitting the evidence would undermine the efficiency of the bankruptcy process.

The court found that no binding agreement precluded the evidence and that refusing to admit the newly discovered documents would result in an injustice to the creditor.

The court exercised its discretion to admit the fresh evidence, allowing the trustee to file responding documentation.

The applicant mother sought to relocate their 10-year-old son from Toronto to Naperville, Illinois, due to a job promotion.

The respondent father opposed the relocation.

The court determined the burden of proof was shared, as the child did not spend "vast majority" or "substantially equal" time with either parent.

After a holistic assessment of the child's best interests, considering relocation-specific and general factors, the court denied the mother's relocation application.

The court found the father discharged his burden that relocation was not in the child's best interests, citing concerns about the impact on the child's relationship with the father, disruption to schooling, and the mother's willingness to foster a meaningful co-parenting relationship.

Joint decision-making was ordered, and a divorce was granted.

The plaintiff tripped and fell at the defendant hospital, which admitted liability for the hazard.

The plaintiff claimed the physical injuries from the fall prevented her from caring for her terminally ill husband at home, forcing his return to the hospital where he died.

She sought damages for severe psychological injury (PTSD) stemming from her guilt over failing to fulfill his dying wish.

The court dismissed the claim, finding the plaintiff failed to establish factual causation, as her physical pain likely resulted from the unreasonable strain of caring for her husband alone, and her psychological symptoms were more likely attributable to pre-existing depression and complex bereavement.

The court further held that the alleged chain of causation was too remote to establish legal foreseeability.