Superior Court of Justice

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action brought two motions: one seeking leave to file third and fourth supplementary affidavits from an expert, Dr. Jooyoung Lee, and another compelling the defendant, Smith & Wesson Corp., to provide answers and documents from a cross-examination.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the supplementary affidavits were not relevant to the certification criteria and that the requested discovery questions were primarily merits inquiries or fishing expeditions, disproportionate to the needs of the certification motion.

The plaintiff, a golf course operator, sought an interim injunction to regain possession of the golf course after the defendant owner purported to terminate their lease agreement.

The lease included a profit-sharing arrangement.

The defendant alleged breaches including failure to obtain a liquor license, poor record-keeping, and self-dealing by the plaintiff's principals, specifically pocketing cash from memberships and restaurant sales.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case or irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favored the defendant due to the plaintiff's "unclean hands" and the irreparable breakdown of trust in the profit-sharing venture.

The Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) for the Estate of Marek Janusz Krol brought a motion to vary a prior order to permit the sale of the Cawthra property, citing financial inability to maintain the mortgage.

The Hermistons, who claim beneficial ownership of the property, opposed the motion and proposed alternative financing.

The court dismissed the ETDL's motion, finding insufficient new facts to vary the order, but ordered Joel Hermiston to pay all carrying costs of the property, allowing the ETDL to bring a new motion if costs are not met or refinancing fails.

The plaintiff and third-party father sued the defendant sons for repayment of alleged oral loans totaling $248,000 used to purchase a condominium.

The sons counterclaimed for unpaid wages, alleging the payments were actually 'banked' wages from their employment at the father's companies, and sought punitive damages for the father's conduct.

The court dismissed the loan claims, finding the payments were indeed banked wages.

The court allowed the sons' counterclaim for unpaid wages, finding the father personally liable as a common employer.

The court also awarded $75,000 in punitive damages to each son due to the father's reprehensible conduct, including withholding wages, spoliation of employment records, and maintaining a false narrative throughout the litigation.

The representative plaintiffs moved to discontinue their Ontario class action regarding allegedly defective surgical staplers, intending to rely instead on an overlapping class action in British Columbia.

The defendants opposed the discontinuance and sought an indefinite adjournment, arguing that discontinuing the Ontario action before the resolution of their stay application in B.C. would prejudice absent class members by restarting the limitation period.

The court agreed that the risk of limitations prejudice to absent class members was too great and adjourned the motion indefinitely.

The court also invoked the Canadian Judicial Protocol for the Management of MultiJurisdictional Class Actions to coordinate with the B.C. court.

The defendant, Trista Forbes, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault for stabbing her intimate partner during an argument.

The Crown sought a nine-month custodial sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including intimate partner abuse and elements of a home invasion, alongside significant mitigating factors such as the defendant's lack of criminal record, status as a single mother, history of abuse, and gainful employment.

Distinguishing the Crown's cited precedents, the court applied the criteria for conditional sentences from R. v. Proulx.

Concluding that a conditional sentence would not endanger community safety and was consistent with sentencing principles, the court imposed a nine-month conditional sentence with house arrest and curfew conditions, followed by one year of probation, along with DNA and weapons prohibition orders.

In this family trial, the court resolved disputed equalization, support, and parenting terms after most parenting issues had been settled.

The court held that a parental $200,000 reduction of a registered mortgage was not a completed gift before marriage because the donors retained control until the mortgage discharge after marriage, and the applicant therefore failed to prove the claimed date-of-marriage deduction.

The court also found that the applicant wrongfully refused to close a matrimonial home buyout by insisting on improper family law adjustments under the agreement of purchase and sale, and ordered forfeiture of half of the $110,000 deposit to the respondent.

Recurring parental payments for childcare and legal fees were treated as income rather than loans, leading to imputation of income at $111,583 from 2019 onward.

Set-off child support and proportionate section 7 sharing were ordered, spousal support was denied, and detailed parenting terms were fixed.

The plaintiff sought to amend his 13-year-old Statement of Claim to add a claim under section 15 of the Charter and to include Department of Justice (DOJ) employees as impugned actors.

The defendants opposed, citing prejudice due to delay and arguing the DOJ claim was not legally recognizable.

The court granted leave to add the section 15 Charter claim, finding it was not a new cause of action or that any limitation period was not plain and obvious.

However, the court dismissed the request to add DOJ employees, holding that lawyers acting in their professional capacity for the Crown are generally not personally liable for Charter breaches, distinguishing this from the role of Crown prosecutors in criminal cases.

The court-appointed receiver of Crystal Farms Limited sought approval for the sale of two real properties.

Despite a late, slightly higher conditional offer from a third party, the court applied the principles from Royal Bank of Canada v. Soundair Corp. to approve the original sale agreements.

The court found the receiver had made sufficient efforts to obtain the best price, acted with efficiency and integrity, and that the original transactions were in the best interests of all stakeholders, dismissing the respondent's request to reopen the sale process.

This motion concerned the enforcement of a prior court order for the sale of jointly owned real property.

The respondent, Jason Andrew Whiting, failed to cooperate with the sale process, including accepting a written offer and vacating the premises, despite previous warnings and opportunities to provide evidence of alternative buyers.

The court found no justification for further delay, declared the existing agreement of purchase and sale binding, and ordered the respondent to vacate the property by a specified date.

Costs were fixed against the respondent.

The moving party defendants sought leave to amend their statement of defence to add a single sentence alleging the plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing the proposed amendment lacked sufficient particulars.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that given the specific allegations of solicitor negligence, sexual assault, and psychological manipulation, a bare mitigation defence was legally untenable without further particulars.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the defendants moving again with a properly particularized pleading.

The Crown sought to file a letter written by the complainant as a numbered exhibit during trial.

The defence opposed this.

The court denied the Crown's request, citing a prior omnibus ruling by Justice Kurz that restricted evidence regarding certain sexual activity, and the general rule against admitting prior consistent statements as exhibits, especially when they contain information not disclosed in the witness's testimony.

The court found no unfairness to the Crown or complainant in not admitting the letter, as the complainant had an opportunity to address inconsistencies during cross-examination.

The trustee in bankruptcy brought a motion seeking to declare a property transfer by the bankrupt to his spouse as a transfer at undervalue under section 96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The respondent opposed the motion and did not consent to it being heard by an Associate Judge sitting as a Registrar in Bankruptcy.

The Associate Judge traversed the motion to be heard by a Judge presiding over the Commercial List, leaving the issue of a registrar's jurisdiction to hear contested transfer at undervalue motions for another day.

The defendants brought a motion seeking to dismiss the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, arguing that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction and that the motion constituted an abuse of process due to a prior Quebec court order concerning share ownership.

The defendants also sought to add Shawn Gascon as a party.

The court dismissed the defendants' request to dismiss the summary judgment motion, finding that the issues of jurisdiction and abuse of process should be properly addressed within the context of the summary judgment motion itself, and that the cited rules (21.01(3)(a) and (d)) did not grant authority to dismiss a motion, only an action.

However, the court granted the defendants' request to add Shawn Gascon as a defendant, deeming him a necessary party to the action.

The plaintiffs purchased a motel and gas station from the defendants.

Prior to the sale, the defendants represented that the fuel tank system was in good condition and only required routine testing, concealing outstanding TSSA orders and a history of non-compliance.

The Agreement of Purchase and Sale included a clause requiring the defendants to provide a report confirming the system was safe and compliant, which they failed to do.

The plaintiffs subsequently discovered the system was non-compliant and faced closure by the TSSA, forcing them to incur significant costs to install a new system.

The court found the defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

The court also found the plaintiffs' real estate lawyer negligent for failing to adequately protect them in the transaction.

Liability for the $635,189.12 in damages was apportioned 80% to the defendants and 20% to the lawyer.

The defendant sought to bring a motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim for lack of cause of action, arguing the contract's "affiliate" definition was not met.

At a case conference, the court declined to decide the complex motion, which involved contractual interpretation and surrounding circumstances.

Instead, the parties agreed to proceed with a two-day summary trial to resolve the matter more efficiently and cost-effectively.

The applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement signed in December 2018, alleging financial coercion and lack of understanding.

The respondent sought to uphold the agreement.

The court found that the applicant was intelligent, had received legal advice during negotiations, and understood the agreement.

The court upheld the separation agreement under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act, maintaining joint decision-making and equal parenting time, but added communication protocols and adjusted child support to $1,200 per month based on the respondent's updated income.

The offender pleaded guilty to simple assault and unlawful confinement after assisting the primary perpetrator in dragging a vulnerable, exploited woman out of a hotel and into a vehicle.

The Crown sought 4 to 6 months in custody, while the defence sought a non-custodial sentence.

The court considered the offender's status as a vulnerable Black female who had experienced racism, her history of exploitation by the primary perpetrator, and her genuine remorse.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 3 years of probation, 180 hours of community service, and ancillary orders, finding that a non-custodial sentence was fit given the unique mitigating circumstances.

During a sexual assault trial, the Crown brought an application to admit prior consistent statements made by the complainant to a friend via Snapchat on the night of the alleged offence.

The Crown argued the evidence was necessary to rebut the defence's allegation of recent fabrication raised during cross-examination.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the defence's theory posited the motive to fabricate arose before the Snapchat conversation occurred, specifically when the complainant's mother picked her up and she feared punishment for breaking parental rules.

Consequently, the statements lacked probative value to rebut the allegation.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of impaired driving (over 80 mg) after the trial judge excluded breathalyzer evidence due to a s. 10(b) Charter violation.

The trial judge found a breach because the breathalyzer technician failed to follow up on the respondent's "equivocal" non-verbal response (shrug and nod) when asked if he was satisfied with duty counsel.

The appeal court found the trial judge erred in law and fact, holding that an equivocal response, especially when the respondent himself testified he intended to convey satisfaction, does not constitute an "objectively observable indicator" requiring further police inquiry under s. 10(b).

Consequently, the s. 24(2) Charter exclusion of evidence was also found to be in error as the breach did not seriously impact the respondent's Charter-protected interests.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and a verdict of guilty entered.