Superior Court of Justice

The 22-year-old accused pleaded guilty to firearms offences after retrieving a loaded handgun from his car and chasing a restaurant employee following a minor altercation.

The accused, who had ties to the drug trade, admitted on a wiretap to cocking the weapon and considering shooting the employee.

Despite the accused being a youthful first offender who had taken steps toward rehabilitation, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, imposing a global penitentiary sentence of four years.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent, a municipal councillor, contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) by participating in a council vote to indemnify himself and other councillors for legal expenses incurred in responding to a Human Rights Tribunal application.

The applicant argued the respondent had a pecuniary interest and sought to have his seat declared vacant.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the respondent's actions did not contravene the MCIA, particularly under the s. 4(i) exception for benefits related to a member's duties, and that the indemnification by-law was mandatory.

The court also noted that even if there was a contravention, the severity claimed was not warranted, and the respondent acted in good faith.

The plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from terminating their franchise agreement.

The court noted that the agreement was set to expire in April 2024 with no automatic renewal clause.

Finding that an injunction would unfairly extend the agreement indefinitely pending litigation, and that the plaintiff could seek monetary damages, the court dismissed the motion.

The defendants and the third party, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation), agreed to dismiss the third party claim against the Ministry but disagreed on costs.

The court found that it was not unnecessary for the defendants to add the Ministry to ascertain the identity of the correct contractor, and that the Ministry could have avoided the costs claimed by providing the requested information.

The court ordered the dismissal without costs to any party.

The parties separated after a 10-year marriage.

The wife sought equalization of net family property, including the value of a multigenerational home registered to the husband and his father as tenants in common.

The court found the husband held his interest in trust for his siblings and himself upon his mother's death, meaning he had no beneficial interest to equalize at separation.

The court imputed income to both parties and ordered the husband to pay an equalization payment of $5,691, retroactive spousal support of $6,000, and ongoing spousal support of $462 per month for 10 years.

The wife was ordered to pay net child support of $17 per month.

Two applications were brought regarding the validity of a $689,000 mortgage registered against two properties owned by the applicant.

The estate of the deceased chargee claimed the mortgage was valid and secured funds allegedly stolen by the applicant's parents, while the applicant claimed she never authorized or knew about the mortgage and that her signature was forged.

The court found that material facts surrounding the execution of the mortgage were in dispute, requiring findings of credibility and potentially expert evidence.

Consequently, the court adjourned the applications and directed that the issues proceed to trial pursuant to Rule 38.10(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff in the Severance action moved for an order extending the time to set two related motor vehicle accident cases down for trial until December 31, 2024.

All parties consented except the Ministry of Transportation and Carillion Canada.

The court found that the opposing defendants would not be prejudiced by the extension, whereas the plaintiffs and other defendants would suffer prejudice if forced to set the actions down while a leave to appeal decision regarding discovery refusals was pending.

The motion to extend the time was granted.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to restore their personal injury action to the trial list after it was struck off due to the inaction of their former lawyer, who was subsequently suspended by the Law Society.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The court found that the plaintiffs had an acceptable explanation for the delay, as they had constantly inquired about the status of their file and were failed by their former lawyer.

The court also found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants, as liability had been admitted and relevant evidence preserved.

The plaintiffs' motion was granted and the defendants' cross-motion was dismissed.

Following an interpleader application regarding funds held for a construction project, two creditors asserted priority claims which were dismissed.

Two other respondents took the lead in opposing these priority claims and subsequently sought their costs.

The court awarded $10,000 in partial indemnity costs to the successful respondents, to be paid equally by the unsuccessful creditors, with the award divided 60/40 in favour of the respondent who took the primary lead.

The accused, Nathaniel Dillon, was charged with assault, forcible confinement, threatening bodily harm, and sexual assault against his then-girlfriend, ZK.

This judgment specifically addresses the assault and sexual assault counts.

The court admitted prior discreditable conduct evidence to demonstrate the accused's control and coercion over the complainant.

The complainant's testimony, supported by photographic evidence of bruising, was found credible despite inconsistencies regarding her movements during the incident and delayed reporting, as these were understood within the context of an intimate partner relationship and the psychological realities of abuse.

The court found that the complainant did not consent to the sexual acts, which were performed out of fear of further harm, and rejected arguments of implied consent or honest belief in consent.

The plaintiffs moved for an order extending the time to set two motor vehicle accident cases down for trial until December 31, 2024.

All parties consented except the Ministry of Transportation and Carillion Canada.

The court found that the opposing defendants would not be prejudiced by the extension, whereas the plaintiffs and other defendants would suffer prejudice if forced to set the action down while an appeal regarding a refusals motion was pending.

The motion to extend the time was granted.

The plaintiff private lender moved for summary judgment to enforce a mortgage renewal agreement after the defendant defaulted.

The defendant, a self-represented homeowner, argued the renewal was unconscionable.

The court found the renewal agreement unconscionable due to the plaintiff's exploitation of the defendant's financial desperation, failure to provide mandatory regulatory disclosures, and inclusion of illegal terms under the Interest Act.

The renewal was declared null and void, and damages were awarded based only on the original mortgage terms, excluding the plaintiff's claimed discharge fees.

The applicant father brought a motion for an interim parenting order seeking joint decision-making, shared parenting on a week-about basis, and an order that the child attend school in Belleville.

The respondent mother agreed to joint decision-making but sought a 2-2-5-5 schedule and for the child to attend school in Prince Edward County, where she had relocated.

The court granted the mother's request for a 2-2-5-5 schedule but ordered that the child attend school in Belleville, finding that the mother's unilateral relocation and change of school did not create a new status quo and that remaining in Belleville was in the child's best interests.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board upholding a physician's finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment with anti-psychotic medication.

The appellant argued the Board erred by relying on outdated medical history and by conflating his disagreement with the proposed treatment with incapacity.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the appellate standards of review from Vavilov, finding that the Board's treatment of medical history was a question of mixed fact and law entitled to deference.

The court concluded the Board correctly applied the legal test for capacity without resorting to a best interests analysis.

The appeal was dismissed.

During a jury trial for dangerous driving causing bodily harm and failing to stop at the scene of an accident, the Crown brought a mid-trial application to determine the voluntariness of the accused's statement to police.

The defence argued the interviewing officer made implied threats or inducements that undermined the accused's right to silence.

The court applied the Oickle framework and found that while the officer's comments implied a subtle quid pro quo, they were not strong enough to overbear the accused's will.

The court concluded the statement was voluntary and admissible.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant mortgagor following a default on a second mortgage.

The defendant admitted liability for the principal and interest but disputed liability for mortgage discharge fees.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the default.

However, the court declined to award the claimed discharge fees, as the plaintiff had not yet incurred them and there was no evidence they were a genuine pre-estimate of damages.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for the principal and missed interest payments, plus partial indemnity costs.

The accused was charged with possession of a loaded restricted firearm after police found a handgun in an apartment rented by his girlfriend.

The Crown's case relied on the accused's fingerprints on the firearm and statements made by the girlfriend to police upon her arrest, claiming the gun belonged to the accused.

The court found the girlfriend's evidence and statements to be unreliable and lacking credibility.

The court held that the fingerprint evidence alone, without corroborating evidence of the accused's presence in the apartment or knowledge of the firearm's character, was insufficient to establish constructive possession.

The accused was found not guilty.

The Crown applied for a further detention order under s. 490(3) of the Criminal Code for three cell phones seized during a child pornography investigation.

Over the past year, police attempted 175 million passcodes using brute force attacks without success, representing an infinitesimal fraction of the 44 nonillion possible combinations.

The court dismissed the application, finding that further detention was not warranted because the evidentiary value of the phones remained non-existent while the respondent's privacy and property interests remained high.

This addendum clarifies and corrects the court's previous Reasons released on December 5, 2023, regarding the application of a statutory deductible to a Family Law Act award.

Following a jury trial, the court had initially misunderstood the parties' agreement, stating no deductible applied to Sandra McCurdy's $65,000 award.

This addendum rectifies that, confirming the award is subject to the statutory deductible of $22,183.63, resulting in a revised total net judgment for the plaintiffs.

The offenders, a police officer and an employee of the Public Guardian and Trustee, were convicted by a jury of defrauding an estate of over $830,000 using a forged will.

The employee was also convicted of breach of trust by a public official.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including the complexity and duration of the fraud, the significant impact on the victim, and the offenders' abuse of their positions of public trust.

Both offenders were sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment.

The court also issued restitution and forfeiture orders for the full amount of the fraud.