Superior Court of Justice

This appeal arose from a priority dispute between insurance companies concerning accident benefits coverage following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant, Trafalgar Insurance Company, appealed an arbitration decision that found the injured party was not insured by Economical Insurance Company and not entitled to Statutory Accident Benefits from them.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the arbitrator's findings that the vehicle in question was not an 'owned automobile' under Economical's standard Ontario Garage Policy (OAP 4) because its use (leased to a rental company) was outside the scope of the insured's business and was specifically excluded by the policy.

The court also affirmed that section 233(2) of the Insurance Act did not apply as the issue was the vehicle's insured status, not a breach of contract or misrepresentation.

The plaintiffs' counsel brought a motion for an order appointing a litigation guardian for the plaintiff, who was pursuing a medical negligence claim.

The plaintiff's mental health had deteriorated, and he refused to undergo a capacity assessment.

The court found the plaintiff to be a person under disability, incapable of providing instructions for the litigation.

The court appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as the plaintiff's litigation guardian, validated substituted service, dispensed with service of supporting materials on the defendant, and discontinued the co-plaintiff's claim without costs.

The Crown sought a permanent publication ban on excerpts from the accused's "A White Awakening" manifesto and video footage depicting the incident, arguing public harm and inspiration for copycat crimes.

The media coalition opposed the ban, emphasizing the open court principle and the importance of public information.

The court dismissed the ban on manifesto excerpts, finding no serious risk from responsible media reporting, but ordered the unredacted manifesto sealed until trial conclusion and limited video access to exclude the moment of impact.

The respondent moved to adjourn a trial in a mobility case, which the applicant opposed.

The motion was based on the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) being unable to complete its report by a court-ordered deadline, which had effectively vacated the OCL's involvement.

The court denied the adjournment, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural orders, the vacating of the OCL order due to non-compliance with the deadline, and the need for timely adjudication in the child's best interests given limited judicial resources.

The applicant challenged the police stop and subsequent search of his SUV on Charter grounds (sections 8 and 9), arguing arbitrary detention and unreasonable search.

A loaded handgun and fentanyl were found.

The applicant alleged police officers falsified notes and testimony regarding the reason for the stop (burnt-out headlight vs. prior BOLO) and the observation of cannabis in plain view.

The court found the police evidence untrustworthy, concluding the stop was based on stale BOLO information, not a burnt-out headlight, and the cannabis observations were inconsistent and unreliable.

The court found breaches of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter and excluded the evidence under section 24(2), emphasizing the seriousness of wilful Charter violations and testimonial dishonesty.

The court also commented on the police's failure to record interactions when attempting to enlist the applicant as a confidential informant, recommending a procedure for such records.

The plaintiff, Kaboom Fireworks Inc., brought a motion to compel several defendants (Vulcan Fireworks International Inc., Joseph Wan, Mystical Distributing Company Ltd., and Mystical Distributing International Ltd.) to answer undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery.

The action concerns an alleged breach of an Exclusive Supply Agreement.

The court addressed various categories of refusals and undertakings, largely finding the questions relevant to the pleadings, particularly regarding the relationships between defendant entities, damage calculations, and the sale of Vulcan.

Most outstanding discovery obligations were ordered to be answered, with some resolved by consent or adjourned.

In a pretrial Crown application, the court considered whether a young complainant's videotaped statement in a sexual offence prosecution could be admitted for its truth and stand in place of in-court testimony.

Applying the principled hearsay approach, the court held that threshold reliability was established through the timing and content of the statement, the child's responses, surveillance evidence, and DNA evidence.

The application nevertheless failed because the Crown did not provide a sufficient evidentiary foundation to establish necessity on the basis of psychological unavailability, as the parents' evidence and a brief doctor's letter did not demonstrate a real possibility of psychological trauma from testifying.

The application was dismissed, without prejudice to renewal if additional evidence became available before trial.

This is a motion for approval of a class action settlement concerning incidents of glass falling from balconies at Festival Tower, a condominium in Toronto.

The representative plaintiffs sought court approval for the settlement agreement, appointment of a claims administrator, approval of the distribution program, and approval of counsel fees and disbursements.

The court granted the orders sought, finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, despite the comparatively minor loss of balcony use compared to similar cases.

The court considered the risks of litigation, including novel claims for loss of use and enjoyment, and the challenges in establishing liability and aggregate damages.

The offender, Ryan Foster, pleaded guilty to three convenience store robberies involving weapons and gratuitous violence.

The Crown sought a 9-year global sentence and a 10-year Long-Term Supervision Order (LTSO).

The defence sought a 7-year global sentence (18 months further custody) and a 5-6 year LTSO.

The court imposed an 8-year global sentence, resulting in 18 months further custody, and a 7-year LTSO.

The judge emphasized general and specific deterrence, while also considering the offender's mental health issues (PTSD, ASPD) and potential for rehabilitation, recommending he serve his remaining sentence at a correctional and treatment centre.

The applicant, as estate trustee, sought the court's advice and direction on three issues: the beneficial ownership and exigibility of a residential property (Concession Road Property), the legal validity of an insurance policy trust for the deceased's children, and leave to assign the estate into bankruptcy.

The court found that the Concession Road Property was beneficially owned by the deceased's ex-wife and was not exigible for estate creditors.

It also determined that the purported insurance policy trust was not legally binding due to precatory language and lack of certainty of subject matter.

Finally, the court denied leave for the estate to be assigned into bankruptcy, finding the applicant had not sufficiently proven the estate's insolvency.

Citibank, N.A. commenced an application seeking the appointment of an investigative receiver for Rodrigo Lebois Mateos' assets, inspection of records for Terralpa Investment Fund I Limited Partnership and Araterra Inversiones, and compliance with the Limited Partnerships Act.

The respondents brought a motion to permanently or temporarily stay the application in favour of ongoing proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The court granted a temporary stay of Citibank's application for a receiver, finding a substantial overlap with the U.S. proceedings and potential for duplication of resources.

However, the court ordered Terralpa LP and Araterra Inversiones to comply with the record-keeping and disclosure requirements of the Limited Partnerships Act, as this relief was outside the U.S. court's jurisdiction.

A sealing order was also granted for sensitive financial information to maintain comity with the U.S. proceedings.

The applicant mother and respondent father sought orders regarding parenting time and child support for their three-year-old child.

The father sought expanded, unsupervised parenting time, while the mother sought to suspend his parenting time due to the child's recent severe resistance and separation anxiety.

The court found no evidence of family violence or intentional alienation, attributing the child's resistance to normal developmental stages, the mother's anxiety, and the infrequency of visits.

The court ordered a step-up parenting plan, beginning with virtual visits and progressing to alternate weekend overnights.

The court also ordered the father to pay retroactive child support from December 1, 2020, and ongoing support of $539 per month, with a $50 monthly reduction for travel expenses.

The Plaintiff, Saugeen Economic Development Corporation, sought to enforce a second mortgage against the property of the Defendants, Karl and Karen Peuser.

The Defendants brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to discharge the mortgage, arguing the Plaintiff had surrendered its security interest during their respective bankruptcy proceedings by filing an amended proof of claim as an unsecured creditor.

The court found no express or implied surrender of the security interest, noting that the Plaintiff's actions were consistent with the security having no value at the time of bankruptcy and did not prejudice other creditors.

Consequently, the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the Defendants' cross-motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to declare three judgment debtors as vexatious litigants and to prohibit them from bringing further motions without leave, or alternatively, to require them to post security for costs.

The motion was prompted by the judgment debtors' attempt to set aside a 2014 trial judgment based on allegedly new evidence.

The court found that two of the judgment debtors had a history of abusive litigation conduct, including re-litigating decided issues and failing to pay costs awards.

The court declared those two debtors vexatious litigants and ordered all three to post security for costs before pursuing any further motions to set aside the judgment.

The respondent, Rene Faucher, brought a motion to change seeking shared decision-making, equal shared parenting time, and child support based on s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, including a retroactive adjustment.

The applicant, Dianne Douglas, opposed the increase in parenting time and sought sole decision-making.

The court found that the respondent's parenting time had exceeded 40% since 2017 and granted a retroactive child support adjustment in his favour, effective January 1, 2018.

However, the court dismissed the respondent's request to transition to equal parenting time, citing the children's settled routine, their age, and the protracted duration of the status quo.

The applicant's request for sole decision-making was also dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

This endorsement addresses cross-motions in a family law dispute concerning children's counselling, distribution of matrimonial home proceeds, and Section 7 expenses.

The court ordered the children to attend counselling at a specific firm without the applicant's consent, with shared costs.

It dismissed the applicant's request for an immediate disbursement of funds from the matrimonial home proceeds, pending further financial valuations.

The issues of decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and certain Section 7 expenses were adjourned for a longer hearing.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against an emergency room physician following the death of Elisha Shaw.

Ms. Shaw presented to the emergency room with severe abdominal pain radiating to her back, having previously undergone bariatric surgery.

The defendant physician discharged her without a surgical consult, despite her pain remaining unmanaged and a CT scan indicating a possible internal hernia.

Ms. Shaw returned to the hospital the next day, required emergency surgery for an ischemic bowel, and subsequently died.

The court found that the physician breached the standard of care by failing to request an urgent surgical consult and that this negligence caused Ms. Shaw's death, as earlier intervention would have prevented the bowel necrosis.

Damages were awarded to the estate and family members under the Family Law Act.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions from an examination for discovery that was unilaterally adjourned by the defendant's previous counsel after a single objection regarding the scope of medical history questions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the adjournment improper as it did not meet the high threshold of futility required by Rule 34.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court ordered the discovery to resume and awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff, criticizing the defendant's counsel's conduct as unprofessional and an abuse of process.

The respondent brought a motion asserting that the parties were legally divorced in the UAE in 2010 via a bare talaq.

The applicant argued they remained married until separating in 2020.

The court found that a bare talaq without official or adjudicative oversight is not recognized as a valid foreign divorce in Canada.

The court accepted the applicant's evidence that the parties continued to live together and represent themselves as married until 2020.

The respondent's motion was dismissed, and the self-represented applicant was awarded full indemnity costs of $6,300 due to the respondent's unreasonable conduct and voluminous, deficient materials.

The plaintiff, Michael Cavanagh, brought an action against Enzo Mizzi and others, alleging a verbal "umbrella agreement" under which he was entitled to half of Enzo's shares in two numbered companies holding the "Homewood" properties.

Cavanagh claimed this agreement covered virtually all of Mizzi's real estate projects since 2001.

Mizzi denied the existence of such an agreement, asserting Cavanagh was an employee.

The court found no objective meeting of the minds for the alleged "umbrella agreement" and that its terms were unascertainable.

Despite both parties having credibility issues, the court dismissed the action, finding Cavanagh's claim of a multi-million dollar verbal agreement without documentation to be objectively unsustainable.