Superior Court of Justice

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for failing to attend an examination for discovery, the defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The self-represented plaintiff made unsubstantiated allegations of fraud against the defendant's counsel and filed a complaint against the judge.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct since August 2021 to be reprehensible, vexatious, and unnecessarily lengthening the proceeding.

The court awarded the defendant costs of $47,000, reflecting substantial indemnity costs for the period after August 2021 and partial indemnity costs prior to that date.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment after the defendant buyer repudiated a residential real estate agreement within hours of acceptance and failed to pay the $40,000 deposit.

The plaintiffs subsequently sold the property to another buyer for $12,473 less than the defendant's agreed price.

The court conducted a comprehensive review of the law on deposits and relief from forfeiture, concluding that the Stockloser test applies to real estate deposits.

The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to the full $40,000 deposit, as the defendant's breach was not accompanied by unconscionability that would justify relief from forfeiture, despite the deposit exceeding the actual damages.

The offender pleaded guilty to second degree murder after stabbing his intimate partner 21 times.

The Crown sought a 16-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 13 years.

The court considered the brutal nature of the attack, the offender's prior assault on the victim, and his criminal record as aggravating factors.

However, the court also weighed the offender's early guilty plea, remorse, and cooperation with police as mitigating factors.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 14 years.

The applicant sought to remove his sister as co-estate trustee of their late father's estate and to order her to vacate the estate's residential property.

The respondent had an option under the will to purchase the property at fair market value but refused to accept the appraised value or vacate the property, living there rent-free.

The court found the respondent's option to purchase had expired and that she was in a conflict of interest that prevented the proper administration of the estate.

The court removed the respondent as estate trustee, vested the estate assets in the applicant as sole trustee, and ordered the respondent to provide vacant possession of the property.

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.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss or stay the plaintiff's action, alleging it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and that the plaintiff's counsel was in an incurable conflict of interest.

The court found the action to be an abuse of process due to significant overlap with other proceedings and the plaintiff's counsel's prior representation of one of the defendants as estate trustee, which provided access to privileged information.

The court concluded that this conflict created incurable prejudice.

The action was permanently stayed, and the plaintiff's counsel was removed from the record and prohibited from acting in any proceeding related to the estate where the defendant is a party.

Costs were awarded to the moving parties.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion by the plaintiffs to strike the defendants' Statement of Defence.

The plaintiffs sought substantial or partial indemnity costs, arguing the defendants' non-compliance with disclosure obligations necessitated the motion.

The court found the plaintiffs' claimed hourly rates excessive for the Northwest Region and the docketed hours unreasonable for a non-complex, largely undefended procedural motion.

Applying principles that costs should be fair and reasonable, reflecting parties' expectations, the court awarded the plaintiffs $7,500.00, inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements, significantly less than sought.

The self-represented applicant brought a 14B motion seeking leave to appeal a prior order that restricted further motions without permission.

The court clarified that the prior order was not intended to apply to motions for leave to appeal or stay the order itself.

The court granted permission for the motion, if required, and directed the applicant to serve and file the motion in the regular course pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The children's aid society brought a protection application regarding three children who had been exposed to emotional harm due to extreme high-conflict litigation between their parents.

The court had previously convened a hearing on its own motion due to concerns about the children's safety and the society's inaction.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm and could not be adequately protected by a supervision order, particularly given the mother's refusal to cooperate and the father's lack of contact.

The court ordered the children to be placed in the temporary care and custody of the society.

The defendant moved to dismiss a defamation action brought by a long-term care home and its CEO regarding tweets she made alleging elder abuse and neglect of her mother.

The court granted the anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, finding that the tweets related to a matter of public interest and that the plaintiffs failed to show sufficient harm to outweigh the public interest in protecting the expression.

The action was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant.

The applicant father brought a motion to resume his parenting time after it was suspended due to a series of unverified physical and sexual abuse allegations orchestrated by the respondent mother and her new partner.

The mother brought a cross-motion to suspend the father's parenting time and for a restraining order.

The court found a material change in circumstances, noting the mother's lack of insight, her partner's concerning criminal and mental health history, and the failure of child welfare agencies to adequately intervene.

The court dismissed the mother's cross-motion, ordered the resumption of the father's parenting time on a supervised basis, and directed the involvement of the children's aid society to support the family's reunification.

Following a jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, the court determined whether long-term disability benefits received by the plaintiff from a private Manulife policy were deductible from the jury's award for past and future income loss.

The court held that the Manulife benefits met the criteria under s. 3(7)(d) of Ontario Regulation 34/10, as they were offered to employed persons and the maximum benefit was calculated with reference to employment income.

Consequently, the benefits were deemed payments under an income continuation benefit plan, making them deductible from the income loss award and subject to assignment under s. 267.8 of the Insurance Act.

The plaintiff corporation sued its former Nigerian business partner and its principal arising from failed oil and gas ventures and a letter sent to Nigerian regulators and Shell after the relationship collapsed.

The court held that the parties’ written agreements made compensation contingent on successful acquisition and completion of an oil and gas asset, and implied a term requiring repayment of $405,000 advanced when no qualifying acquisition was completed.

The court further found the July 2014 letter defamatory, rejected the defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege, and held that malice was established through knowing or reckless misstatements made to exert commercial pressure.

Contractual repayment was ordered against the corporate defendant alone, while defamation damages of $200,000 were awarded jointly and severally against both defendants.

In a family law motion between separated spouses, the moving party sought relief after the other spouse admitted surreptitiously copying private emails, documents, and text messages from his computer and sharing some of that material with her legal team and accountant.

The court held that a forensic audit was necessary before admissibility and privilege issues could be properly determined, and applied the framework governing unauthorized access to privileged information.

An independent third-party solicitor, Heuristica Discovery Counsel LLP, was appointed to conduct an expanded eDiscovery review, with the spouse who copied the material ordered to pay the upfront costs subject to reapportionment at trial.

The court also granted a temporary restraining order preventing further dissemination of the surreptitiously obtained information and required disclosure of all recipients.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second degree murder, attempted murder, and firearms offences following a public shooting at a shopping mall.

The offender fired at an intended target but missed, instead striking and killing an innocent bystander.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 14 years for the murder, alongside concurrent sentences of 12 years for attempted murder and 8 years for the firearms offences.

The court rejected the application of the rule against multiple convictions for the attempted murder charge, noting the offences involved different victims.

The appellant trusts appealed income tax reassessments for the 2006 and 2007 taxation years, arguing they were resident in Alberta and subject to Alberta provincial tax.

The Minister of Finance reassessed the trusts as residents of Ontario.

The court applied the central management and control test to determine trust residency.

The court found that the trustees in Alberta performed primarily administrative functions, while the actual management and control of the trust property was exercised by a beneficiary and professional advisors in Ontario.

The appeals were dismissed.

Following a family law trial regarding parenting time and decision-making responsibility, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought $72,500 in costs, while the respondent argued each party should bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found that while success was divided, the applicant was the more successful party on the primary issue of parenting time.

After considering the parties' offers to settle, unreasonable behaviour by the respondent, and making deductions for excessive or unsubstantiated docket entries, the court ordered the respondent to pay $27,000 in costs to the applicant.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action.

The plaintiff, former Executive Chairman of a non-profit organization, sued the defendants over WeChat messages and a published declaration alleging election manipulation, financial opaqueness, and by-law violations.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the expressions related to a matter of public interest, the defendants had valid defences including justification and fair comment, and the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed the minimal harm suffered by the plaintiff.

The accused, having been convicted of sexual offences and making child pornography, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from the laying of charges to the conclusion of evidence was approximately 59 months.

The court deducted periods of defence delay, including time taken to schedule a preliminary hearing and trial due to defence counsel's unavailability, as well as discrete exceptional delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and Crown illness.

Although the net delay of 31.4 months slightly exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling, the court dismissed the application, finding that the defence had explicitly waived delay and demonstrated a marked indifference to delay throughout the proceedings.

The mother brought a motion to change seeking ongoing child support for the parties' two teenage children.

The father argued he was unable to work because he was caring for his 27-year-old adult son from another relationship who was in crisis.

The court found the father was intentionally unemployed, as he failed to demonstrate that his adult son required 24-hour care that prevented him from working at least part-time.

The court imputed a part-time income of $15,000 to the father and ordered him to pay $250 per month in ongoing support and arrears.

The court also dismissed the father's claim that the Family Responsibility Office failed to properly account for wage garnishments and tax refunds.