Superior Court of Justice

The applicant mother brought a Motion to Change seeking sole decision-making responsibility and an order that the respondent father's parenting time remain professionally supervised.

The father had engaged in a persistent pattern of pressuring the children to make false allegations of abuse against the mother and her new partner, leading to multiple unfounded CAS and police investigations.

The court found that the father's ongoing behaviour, driven by unaddressed mental health issues and an unfounded belief that the children were being abused, posed a significant risk of emotional harm to the children.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility, ordered that the father's parenting time remain supervised, and issued a restraining order against the father.

The defendant pleaded guilty to occupying a motor vehicle with a loaded handgun, possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and breach of a weapons prohibition.

The court considered the defendant's significant criminal record, including a prior manslaughter conviction, alongside mitigating factors such as his guilty plea and systemic disadvantage stemming from his childhood in a war-torn country.

The court imposed a global sentence of 6.5 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, prioritizing denunciation and deterrence.

The applicant husband brought a non-suit motion to dismiss the respondent wife's claim to set aside their separation agreement and spousal support release.

The court reviewed the test for a non-suit motion in family law, determining it requires assessing whether the claimant has presented a prima facie case.

The court granted the non-suit motion regarding the separation agreement as a whole, finding no prima facie evidence of unconscionability, lack of understanding, or failure to disclose significant assets.

While the court found a prima facie case regarding the spousal support release due to post-separation income disparities, it ultimately dismissed the claim on a balance of probabilities, concluding the release substantially complied with the objectives of the Divorce Act given the wife's informed decision to waive support.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated, and the mother brought a motion to prevent the father from travelling with their 5-year-old child to Egypt, a non-Hague country.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking permission to travel with the child to Egypt to visit his seriously ill mother.

The court dismissed the father's cross-motion, finding that the proposed travel was primarily in the father's interests rather than the child's best interests.

The court noted the risks associated with travel to a non-Hague country, the Canadian government travel advisory for Egypt, the child's young age, and the father's apparent contravention of a prior court order prohibiting the application for travel documents.

The applicant's motion to remove the respondents' counsel of record was previously dismissed.

The parties could not agree on costs, and the respondents sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, citing the lack of merit of the motion and abusive correspondence from the applicant's representative.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and awarded the respondents costs fixed at $6,000.00, finding this amount to be fair, reasonable, and proportionate in the circumstances.

The plaintiff, a 55-year-old Night Shift Supervisor with 17 years of service, sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause without notice.

The employer alleged the plaintiff engaged in time theft and fraud by 'topping up' employees' hours.

The court found that the 'topping up' practice was a long-standing, unwritten institutional practice used by all supervisors to align with a union contract guaranteeing 40 hours of work per week.

The court concluded the employer failed to establish just cause for termination.

The plaintiff was awarded 19 months' pay in lieu of notice, plus an additional 14 months' extended notice due to the employer's bad faith conduct during the dismissal, for a total of 33 months' notice.

The offender pleaded guilty to 72 counts of firearms and drug trafficking, having sold 60 firearms and 23kg of methamphetamine to undercover officers.

The court weighed the extreme seriousness of the offences, the offender's criminal record, and his role in a sophisticated operation against his guilty plea, rehabilitative efforts, and the unusually harsh conditions of his pre-sentence detention at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

A global sentence of 13 years was imposed, reduced from 14 years due to the oppressive conditions of detention.

The offender was convicted of possessing over two kilograms of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The offence occurred nine days after his release on statutory release for prior robbery convictions.

The fentanyl he possessed caused a near-fatal overdose of an acquaintance in his apartment.

The Crown sought a 20-year sentence and delayed parole eligibility, while the defence sought 12 years.

The court sentenced the offender to 16 years in custody, less 1,915 days of pre-sentence credit, finding the large quantity of fentanyl, the near-fatal overdose, and his status as a recent parolee to be significant aggravating factors.

The Crown's request for delayed parole eligibility was dismissed.

On an interim spoken-to appearance concerning the terms of an adjournment, the court considered whether the balance of an ex parte Mareva injunction should continue until the full motion hearing.

Applying the elevated Mareva injunction standard, the court expressed doubts on the limited record that the moving parties had shown a strong prima facie fraud case, and also noted concerns about possible non-disclosure at the original without-notice hearing, including omitted investment risk acknowledgments.

The court further found that, over the short adjournment period, the risk of irreparable harm appeared greater to the responding parties because continuation of the injunction could jeopardize financing, business operations, and the individual defendants' home.

Without prejudice to the ultimate motion judge, the remaining Mareva injunction was lifted.

The court-appointed Receiver and an equipment lessor brought motions seeking declarations that the respondent, Hub Truck Centre, did not have valid repair and storage liens over certain trucks formerly operated by the debtor.

Hub had refused to surrender the vehicles, claiming over $2 million in liens.

The court found that Hub failed to prove it was a 'repairer' or 'storer' under the Repair and Storage Liens Act, as there was no evidence of an understanding that it would be paid.

Furthermore, Hub lost any potential possessory liens because the vehicles constantly moved in and out of its yard, and it failed to obtain signed acknowledgments of indebtedness to perfect non-possessory liens.

The motions were granted, the liens were declared invalid, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded against Hub.

In a family trial concerning ongoing child support, s. 7 expenses, alleged arrears, and security for support, the court rejected the payor parent's claim that his earning capacity had fallen to minimum wage after business and personal bankruptcy.

Applying the imputed income framework under s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court found the payor intentionally underemployed, relied on his sworn financial statement, and imputed income of $77,000.

The court apportioned s. 7 expenses 70/30, credited prior extra direct payments against claimed arrears, and ordered the payor to obtain life insurance securing support, subject to proof of uninsurability or prohibitive cost.

Costs were awarded to the successful party, with quantum to be addressed if not resolved.

A long-haul truck driver brought claims for wrongful dismissal and unpaid overtime after his employment was terminated for cause following a second failed random drug test for cannabis.

The court held that the employer's drug and alcohol policy for safety-sensitive drivers was reasonable, clearly communicated, consistently enforced, and proportionately applied, and that no duty to accommodate arose because the evidence did not establish an actual or perceived drug dependency disability.

The court further held that any overtime claim older than two years before the issuance of the claim was barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, and that the remaining overtime claim failed for lack of reliable proof.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.

On a family-law contempt motion concerning repeated failures to facilitate parenting time and reunification therapy, the court found that the respondent had breached three parenting-related orders.

It held that contempt could not be grounded on two superseded orders because contempt is an enforcement remedy available only for a live operative order.

As to the current order, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the order was clear, the respondent knew of it, and her failure to ensure the children's attendance was intentional, but declined to enter a contempt finding because contempt in family cases is a remedy of last resort and an enforcement motion had not yet been pursued.

The court instead directed an enforcement motion, declined police enforcement, and imposed interim compliance-related orders including a $250 payment for each missed parenting-time or therapy date.

On a long motion in a family law proceeding, the respondent wife sought a substantial interim disbursement to fund valuation, forensic document review, and future litigation steps in a dispute involving alleged improper sale of a matrimonial home, disputed intrafamily loans, equalization, and support.

The court held that the threshold merit standard on an interim disbursement motion is not onerous and found sufficient merit in the wife's claims concerning the separation date, the characterization of the property transaction, the legitimacy or discounting of alleged debts to the paternal grandparents, and the need to test the husband's business valuation and income evidence.

The court further found that the wife lacked the means to pursue the litigation, that the playing field was not level, and that the husband had or could access resources to pay.

The requested amount was reduced for proportionality, and an interim disbursement of $137,500.00 was ordered within 30 days.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the defendant moved to strike the case from the January 2027 trial list based on the plaintiff's alleged non-compliance with document production obligations relating to mitigation.

The court found the self-represented plaintiff had incompletely complied and had misunderstood the scope of the prior production order, but rejected the defendant's characterization of the record as showing no meaningful compliance.

The motion to strike was dismissed as overzealous and disproportionate at that stage.

The court instead granted the plaintiff one final opportunity to provide specified personal banking, corporate, share purchase, lease, and job-search records, required that the productions be sworn, and permitted a further six-hour examination.

Costs were reserved to the trial judge.

The respondent father brought an urgent triage request to schedule a motion prior to a case conference, seeking to limit contact between the applicant mother and their 12-year-old daughter.

The court considered the test for urgency under Rule 14(4.2) and recent jurisprudence regarding institutional delay as a potential tool of coercive control.

The court held that institutional delay alone, without evidence of manipulation by a controlling party, cannot justify waiving the case conference requirement.

The request for an urgent motion was dismissed, but the alternative request to schedule an urgent case conference was granted.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against an 11-year-old complainant.

The sole ground of appeal was ineffective assistance of trial counsel, alleging that counsel focused excessively on the complainant's gender identification, failed to cross-examine on lack of opportunity, failed to bring a section 276 application, and failed to obtain an updated psychological report.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that trial counsel's tactical decisions were reasonable and professional, and that the appellant failed to establish incompetence or a miscarriage of justice.

The defendant, previously convicted of defrauding the government of over $1.6 million in taxes and sentenced to custody and an $833,238 fine, applied for a 10-year extension to pay the balance of the fine.

The court found that the defendant had only paid a fraction of the fine despite earning a significant income and accumulating consumer debt.

Applying the inference from Topp, the court concluded the defendant still possessed hidden funds and had not provided a reasonable excuse for failing to pay.

The application was dismissed, and the defendant was found in default, permitting the Crown to pursue civil enforcement.

The plaintiff commenced a civil action against his former spouse and adult daughter, claiming damages for malicious prosecution, defamation, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and intentional interference with economic relations.

The claims arose from the daughter's disclosure of sexual abuse, which led to criminal charges against the plaintiff that ultimately resulted in an acquittal.

The court directed a hearing under Rule 2.1.01 to determine if the claim was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court struck the claim in its entirety without leave to amend, finding that the malicious prosecution claim failed because the police, not the defendants, initiated the prosecution, and the defamation and other claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court also found the action to be an abusive collateral attack on the family law proceedings and an attempt to weaponize the legal system against the defendants.

The plaintiff brought an uncontested summary trial for damages following a default judgment on liability for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of mental suffering against her former intimate partner.

The defendant had pulled the plaintiff backward by her knapsack, causing a severe ankle fracture that required multiple surgeries, and attempted to strangle her.

The court admitted the plaintiff's medical records as business records but noted the lack of expert medical evidence.

The court awarded $60,000 in general damages and $30,000 in aggravated damages, but declined to award punitive damages due to concurrent criminal proceedings and dismissed the pecuniary damages claim for lack of evidence.