Superior Court of Justice

The applicant wife sought a divorce, sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence for the two children, child support (retroactive and prospective), an order for special and extraordinary expenses, imputation of income to the respondent husband, and a restraining order.

The respondent husband did not participate in the proceedings.

The court granted all of the wife's requests, imputing income to the husband, ordering retroactive and prospective child support, granting sole decision-making and primary residence to the wife, ordering supervised parenting time for the husband contingent on therapy, and issuing a restraining order against the husband due to a history of abuse and harassment.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The Trustee in Bankruptcy brought a motion to compel the bankrupt to produce required documents and information, and to evict a residential tenant from the bankrupt's condominium unit to facilitate its sale.

The court granted the unopposed order compelling the bankrupt to produce documents.

However, the court dismissed the request to order financial institutions to produce documents without notice, and dismissed the eviction motion, finding that the Trustee cannot circumvent the jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board under the Residential Tenancies Act.

Following the settlement of a class proceeding regarding abortive purchases of hotel units, the Claims Administrator submitted its report detailing the distribution of the $5.75 million settlement fund.

The court reviewed the report, noting a 71% take-up rate and the extensive work performed by Class Counsel to assist class members.

Satisfied with the administration process, the court approved the Claims Administration Report pursuant to s. 27.1(17) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and authorized the release of the $950,000 holdback for Class Counsel fees.

This is a sentencing decision for Asvin Sahadevan, who pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The offences occurred when a loaded firearm was found in a car driven by the offender, who was subject to a firearms prohibition.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the nature of the offence and the offender's youth record, and significant mitigating factors, such as a difficult childhood marked by abuse, mental health challenges, steady employment, and a guilty plea.

Despite the Crown seeking a term of imprisonment, the court imposed a conditional sentence of 23 months, followed by two years of probation, emphasizing the offender's rehabilitative progress and the exceptional circumstances.

The sentence included 14 months of house arrest and 9 months of curfew, along with a lifetime firearms prohibition and a DNA order.

The Crown brought an application to admit the accused's videotaped statement to police, while the accused brought an application to exclude the statement, alleging it was involuntary and obtained in violation of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel.

The accused, whose first language is Portuguese, argued he did not understand the police cautions due to a language barrier and intoxication.

The court found that the accused understood his right to silence after speaking with duty counsel through an interpreter.

The court dismissed the Charter application and ruled the statement voluntary and admissible, finding no oppressive circumstances or police trickery.

The applicants sought to strike down sections 2(1), 24(1), and 313(1) of the Canada Elections Act, arguing they infringed sections 3 (right to vote) and 15(1) (equality rights) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The challenge contended that Canada's single member plurality (SMP) electoral system resulted in disproportionate translation of votes to seats and underrepresentation of small national parties, women, and racial minorities.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the SMP system is constitutionally valid, does not violate Charter rights, and that the Constitution does not mandate proportional representation.

The court emphasized that voting rights focus on electoral process, not specific outcomes, and that political affiliation is not an analogous ground for discrimination under section 15.

Three Indigenous sisters sued their former foster mother and the Attorney General of Canada for abuse and loss of culture.

The plaintiffs were placed with their non-Indigenous aunt and uncle in the 1960s.

The court found that the foster mother physically and emotionally abused the plaintiffs, treating them as servants and disparaging their Indigenous heritage.

The court also found that Canada breached its fiduciary duty by shelving plans to return the children to their First Nation in Saskatchewan, resulting in a profound loss of culture, language, and identity.

The plaintiffs were awarded $100,000 each in general damages (joint and several), $10,000 each in punitive damages against the foster mother, and $150,000 each against Canada for loss of culture.

During the execution of a search warrant at a residence, the applicant, a Black man who was not the target of the warrant, was ordered to the ground and handcuffed by tactical officers pursuant to a general police policy.

He was subsequently arrested for drug possession by another officer who mistakenly believed he was already under arrest and who lacked objective reasonable grounds.

The applicant brought a motion to exclude the seized fentanyl under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found flagrant violations of the applicant's s. 9 and s. 10(b) rights, noting the systemic issues and the heightened impact of the breaches on a racialized individual in his own home.

The evidence was excluded.

During a trial concerning an oil spill, the plaintiff sought to admit an expert witness, Michael Flynn, retained by their insurer.

The defendant objected, arguing Flynn did not qualify as a participant expert and his report was non-compliant with Rule 53.03.

The court ruled that Flynn was not a participant expert as he was engaged by a party to the litigation and his opinions were not based on personal observation or participation in the events.

However, the court granted leave under Rule 53.08 to admit his report and allow him to testify as a Rule 53 expert, finding a reasonable explanation for the non-compliance and no prejudice to the defendant.

The court qualified Flynn to provide expert opinion on the origin and cause of the oil spill, Microbial Influenced Corrosion (MIC) generally, and compliance with codes and regulations for heating appliances and fuel suppliers.

He was not permitted to testify on the standard of care applicable to an Oil Burner Technician (OBT), adhering to the "specialist to specialist" rule for such opinions.

This is a sentencing decision for O.S., a youth offender who pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and attempted murder.

The Crown sought an adult sentence, arguing that O.S.'s actions, motivated by incel ideology and deemed terrorism, demonstrated a level of maturity and sophistication rebutting the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).

The defence argued for a youth sentence, citing O.S.'s age and mental health challenges.

The court found that O.S.'s meticulously planned and deliberate attack, his deep research into extremist ideology, and his lack of genuine insight or responsibility (blaming the incel culture) rebutted the presumption.

Furthermore, O.S.'s refusal to participate in rehabilitative programs rendered a youth sentence insufficient for accountability and public protection.

Consequently, the court imposed an adult sentence.

This consolidated trial addressed the ownership of a property, with both parties seeking declarations of ownership.

Fajebe claimed Gandhi held the property in trust for him after a sale, while Gandhi asserted an outright sale with a lease-back arrangement.

The court rejected the express trust claim but found an implied trust based on Fajebe's initial equity contribution.

The property was ordered to be sold, with net proceeds divided 75.2% to Gandhi and 24.8% to Fajebe, reflecting their proven contributions.

The court also found the lease unenforceable and ordered Fajebe to make monthly payments from the trial start until the property's sale.

This family law trial addressed property equalization, specifically the treatment and payment of a Mahr (dowry) agreement, alleged spousal debts, and post-separation adjustments.

The court granted a divorce and ruled that the Mahr, a domestic contract for 356 Bahar Azadi gold coins, must be included in the Net Family Property (NFP) equalization and valued in Canadian dollars as of the separation date, not as specific performance of gold coins or at current value.

The court rejected one of the husband's alleged debts but accepted another, determined the value of the wife's car, and ordered shared liability for the husband's post-separation rent and the Okanagan property renovation costs.

The husband was also ordered to pay the wife 50% of the tenant's rent collected.

Ultimately, the wife was ordered to pay the husband a net sum of $3,800, and the husband was awarded $45,000 in costs due to the wife's unreasonable position on the Mahr issue.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order to deal with the proceeds of sale from the jointly-owned matrimonial home, specifically requesting a substantial holdback from the respondent's share, primarily for prospective lump sum spousal support, as well as child support arrears and post-separation adjustments.

The parties had already agreed on an equalization payment.

The court dismissed the request for a holdback related to prospective lump sum spousal support, finding insufficient evidence to justify such an award, but ordered a $35,000 holdback for post-separation adjustments, child support arrears, and spousal support arrears.

The Chief Building Official of the City of Cambridge issued an emergency order for the immediate demolition of the designated heritage Preston Springs Hotel due to its unsafe structural condition and persistent trespassing.

The CBO applied to the court to confirm the reasonableness of this order and to recover demolition costs from the owner, Haastown Holdings (Preston) Inc., who consented to both orders.

The Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (ACO) intervened, challenging the reasonableness of the demolition order, arguing that the CBO failed to consider relevant factors (heritage status, appeal to CRB, alternative remediation options) and considered irrelevant factors (cost of remediation).

The court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the CBO's decision was well-informed by expert reports and his own inspections, and that the building posed an immediate danger that necessitated demolition.

The court confirmed the emergency order and the recoverability of demolition costs from the owner, dismissing the ACO's challenge and alternate relief requests as moot or unsupported.

This motion concerned the substitution of a representative plaintiff in a class action alleging underpayment of vacation and public holiday pay on variable compensation by RBC General Insurance Company and Aviva General Insurance Company.

The original proposed representative plaintiff, Deval Trivedi, was found to be statute-barred against Aviva General.

The plaintiff sought to substitute Binay Saroop as the representative plaintiff against Aviva General and to amend the statement of claim.

The court found that Saroop met the 'some basis in fact' test to rebut the statutory presumption regarding the limitation period and did not have a disqualifying conflict of interest, thus being an adequate representative plaintiff.

The motion to substitute Saroop and amend the claim was granted.

The Crown applied for orders under ss. 486.2(2) and 486.1(2) of the Criminal Code to allow the complainant to testify via CCTV and with a support person present.

The complainant, who was 15-16 years old at the time of the alleged sexual offences, suffered severe anxiety and physical illness during a previous court attendance when denied a screen.

The court granted the application, finding that the testimonial aids would facilitate a full and candid account and were in the interest of the proper administration of justice.

The court also noted the defence's opposition was frivolous and caused unreasonable delay.

The Monitor in a CCAA proceeding sought an order to reject an amended claim filed by Wellesley Residences (2014) Corp., KJ Equity Inc., and Yonge-Abell Partnership.

The court applied the Blue Range test for accepting late or amended claims, which considers inadvertence, good faith, and prejudice.

The court found that the claimants failed to demonstrate inadvertence or good faith, noting that the amended claim was a new claim, not a particularization of the original placeholder, and that the claimants' principals were involved in the transactions triggering the claim but failed to disclose them for years.

The court also found relevant prejudice due to the delay impacting negotiated interim distributions.

The motion was granted, and the amended claim was rejected.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a prior judgment where the applicant, We Care Funding Limited Partnership (WCF), was granted the right to pay out the respondent, 1569635 Ontario Limited (156), for its 50% interest in a second mortgage.

Both parties sought costs.

The court found 156 to be the more successful party, having resisted WCF's initial incorrect capacity claim and ultimately recovering a greater amount than WCF had offered.

While 156 sought substantial indemnity costs based on contractual terms, the court denied this, finding the legal fees were incurred to resist the payout, not to enforce security as contemplated by the mortgage terms.

The court awarded 156 costs on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $45,000 all inclusive.

The defendants moved to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a property, which the plaintiff had obtained ex parte.

The court granted leave for a non-party to intervene.

The CPL was discharged due to the plaintiff's material non-disclosure regarding notice to the defendants and incorrect factual statements in the motion materials.

Additionally, the court found no triable issue regarding the plaintiff's claim to an interest in the property, and a consideration of the equities also supported the CPL's discharge.

The appellant, Elijah McGibbon, appealed a one-year custodial sentence for assault causing bodily harm.

The appeal was based on three grounds: improper admission of a victim impact statement, error in applying the Proulx analysis for a conditional sentence, and an unfit sentence.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge did not err in considering the victim impact statement, properly weighed sentencing principles including rehabilitation and deterrence, and imposed a fit sentence given the gravity of the offence.