Superior Court of Justice

The offender pleaded guilty to facilitating terrorist activity, instructing terrorist activity, and promoting hatred.

Over a decade, he was a leader in a neo-Nazi militant accelerationist group, creating propaganda videos and manifestos that incited violence against identifiable groups and inspired several real-world attacks.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the gravity of terrorism offences designed to result in indiscriminate killing.

The offender was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment, less 48 months of pre-sentence credit.

The court declined to order delayed parole eligibility, finding the offender's prospects for rehabilitation in the penitentiary system warranted standard parole rules.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion to enforce a guarantee securing a $9 million commercial loan after the borrowers defaulted and the guarantors failed to pay on demand.

The defendants filed no evidence and did not attend the hearing.

Applying the Hryniak summary judgment framework, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the uncontested record established the guarantors' clear contractual liability for principal, interest, and enforcement costs.

Judgment was granted for $9,126,162.71, prejudgment and post-judgment interest as stipulated, and substantial indemnity costs.

The Crown brought a Gardiner application to establish disputed aggravating facts for the sentencing of the accused, who had pleaded guilty to attempted murder, aggravated assault, and other offences following a police pursuit.

The court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was hiding in the back seat at a roadblock or that he was hitchhiking to evade police prior to his surrender.

However, the court accepted the Crown's evidence regarding the positioning of the firearm when the accused shot at a police officer during the pursuit.

The plaintiff brought a motion in writing for approval of a settlement on behalf of an adult under disability, along with related relief.

The court adjourned the motion because the plaintiff's motion record exceeded 1,100 pages, failed to comply with the local Guide to Court Approval of Settlements, and contained uncommissioned exhibits.

The plaintiff was ordered to file a revised, compliant motion record of no more than 250 pages, schedule an oral hearing with a compendium, or schedule a case conference.

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the parties' child to Elora, Ontario, and requested sole decision-making authority, child support, and division of property.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought the child's return to Wawa or summer parenting time.

The court found that the father's untreated mental health and addiction issues, which resulted in erratic and abusive behaviour, posed a risk of psychological harm to the child.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act, the court granted the mother's relocation request and sole decision-making authority, while ordering supervised parenting time for the father.

The court also ordered the sale of the matrimonial home with proceeds split equally, subject to an equalization payment, and ordered the father to pay child support.

The offender pleaded guilty to impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing death after a high-speed collision that killed his passenger.

The offender had a blood alcohol concentration well above the legal limit and was driving at an excessive speed.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of high BAC and speed against mitigating factors including a guilty plea, lack of criminal record, and pre-sentence rehabilitative steps.

The offender was sentenced to 3 years and 9 months imprisonment, after receiving 9 months of pre-sentence custody credit, along with a 6-year driving prohibition.

The applicant estate trustee sought a declaration that the deceased's TFSA and RRIF, which designated the respondent as beneficiary, were subject to a resulting trust in favour of the estate or were the product of undue influence.

The court held that the presumption of resulting trust from Pecore does not apply to beneficiary designations on registered accounts, preferring the reasoning in Amherst Crane and Mak Estate over Calmusky.

The court found no evidence that the deceased intended the accounts to form part of his estate, nor any evidence of undue influence by the respondent.

The application was dismissed and the funds were ordered paid to the respondent.

The applicant wife brought an urgent without-notice motion for a restraining order under s. 46 of the Family Law Act against the respondent husband, who had been accused of running a Ponzi-type scheme and whose conduct since separation included a barrage of threatening emails and text messages demanding money.

The court found that while the applicant subjectively feared for her safety, the evidence did not objectively establish reasonable grounds to conclude her safety was at risk, and declined to grant the restraining order.

However, the court granted a non-contact order under s. 47.1 of the FLA, prohibiting the respondent from contacting the applicant except through counsel and from coming within 200 metres of the former matrimonial home, the applicant's workplace, and her mother's home, for a period of 14 days.

The offender was found guilty of kidnapping a 14-year-old boy as leverage to extort the return of stolen cocaine.

The kidnapping was planned and premeditated, and the victim was bound and blindfolded for 36 hours.

The court considered the severe impact on the victim and his family as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included the offender's lack of a prior criminal record and the impact of anti-Black racism on his life trajectory, as detailed in an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment.

The court determined an appropriate sentence of 11.5 years, which was reduced to 9.5 years after applying Summers, Downes, and Duncan credits for pre-sentence custody, house arrest bail, and harsh jail conditions.

The youth offender, previously sentenced to an Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision Order for first-degree murder, appeared for an annual review under s. 94(2) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court noted that the youth had been placed in an adult provincial facility where he could not access the required rehabilitative programming.

Both the Crown and Defence agreed to confirm the sentence for the time being.

The court confirmed the sentence and ordered a further review hearing to consider potential applications to collapse the custodial portion or transfer the youth to a federal institution.

The moving parties sought approval in writing of a settlement for an adult under disability, together with approval of a fee structure agreement and solicitor-client account.

The court held it could not grant the requested relief because the motion record was procedurally deficient, excessively long, improperly organized, and non-compliant with local guidance for court approval motions.

The endorsement criticized the inclusion of unnecessary and duplicative exhibits, inadequate grounds in the notice of motion, and failures to explain the relevance of cited rules.

The motion was adjourned, a fresh record was required, and the parties were directed to choose among a revised written motion, an oral hearing, or a case conference.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment relating to a collateral mortgage registered against her properties.

She argued that she was not properly served with the statement of claim under Rule 16.03(5) because she no longer resided at the address where service was attempted, and alternatively, that she met the test for setting aside a default judgment.

The court found that service was non-compliant, entitling the defendant to have the judgment set aside as of right.

The court further held that the defendant met the test for setting aside the judgment, noting her prompt action upon discovery, plausible explanation for default, and arguable defence of fraud and lack of consent due to language and vision impairments.

The moving plaintiff sought summary judgment against a numbered company and its sole director to recover funds given for a failed cryptocurrency investment.

The company did not dispute its indebtedness but the director opposed personal liability.

The court found the director made fraudulent misrepresentations by guaranteeing that stop losses would protect the plaintiff's crypto investment capital when he had no basis to believe this was possible and later failed to disclose that stop losses could not be set on the chosen crypto platforms.

The court pierced the corporate veil under the Transamerica test, holding the director personally liable on a joint and several basis for the plaintiff's out-of-pocket loss of $152,086.41, being the principal investment less partial repayments.

As the loan agreement was tainted by fraud, the plaintiff was entitled to rescission and tort damages but not contractual interest.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to proceed under s. 138.3 of the Ontario Securities Act, certification of a class action under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and default judgment against a defendant CEO of a cannabis company who failed to plead or appear despite extensive service efforts.

The defendant had been the subject of Mareva injunctions for moving assets internationally.

The court found the certification criteria were satisfied, granted leave under the OSA, and entered default judgment in the amount of $53,616,189 based on uncontroverted expert evidence of class-wide primary and secondary market damages arising from misrepresentations in public filings about the company's cannabis production facility.

The proposed defendant brought a cross-motion to strike paragraphs from an affidavit filed by the plaintiff in support of an unopposed motion to amend its statement of claim.

The moving party argued the paragraphs contained inadmissible hearsay and were scandalous and an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding that the statements were not tendered for the truth of their contents but to explain when the plaintiff discovered its claim against the moving party for limitation purposes.

The court also noted that since the amendment motion was unopposed, leaving the affidavit intact would not prejudice the moving party.

The Receiver brought a motion for an order requiring the debtor and its principal to pay $143,000 to the Receiver.

The funds represented the HST portion of a lease termination settlement paid to the debtor prior to the receivership.

The debtor argued the funds were not 'Property' under the receivership order because they were subject to a statutory deemed trust in favour of the CRA.

The court held that the funds arose from the debtor's real property and fell within the definition of 'Property'.

The court declared the funds must be paid to the Receiver, who would determine priorities in due course.

In an uncontested family law trial following the striking of the respondent's pleadings, the court addressed claims for support, equalization, unjust enrichment, and the tort of intrusion upon seclusion.

The added parties (the applicant's parents) were awarded a constructive trust and resulting trust over the farm property and matrimonial home due to their financial contributions.

The court imputed income to the respondent due to non-disclosure and ordered retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support at the high end of the SSAG.

The court also found the respondent liable for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion for his malicious campaign of disseminating private family court information, awarding $75,000 in general, aggravated, and punitive damages.

A restraining order and a sealing order were granted to protect the applicant's privacy.

The respondent husband brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of a seven-year cohabitation and four-year marriage.

The applicant wife, a physician who had recently completed a medical fellowship and commenced a substantially higher-paying position, opposed the motion, disputing the respondent's compensatory and non-compensatory claims and arguing that no income increase should be shared.

The court found a prima facie entitlement to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, but declined to base quantum on the applicant's post-separation income increase due to the conflicting evidence regarding the respondent's contributions.

The court fixed the applicant's income at $85,490 for support purposes based on a five-year average, declined to impute income to the respondent, and ordered interim spousal support at the high end of the SSAG range at $2,254 per month.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, use of an imitation firearm, kidnapping, and forcible confinement following an ambush in a parking garage.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance and rental vehicle records, to prove the accused drove the pickup truck used by the assailants.

The court rejected the accused's alibi and found that the only reasonable inference was that he drove the truck.

The court convicted the accused as a party to the aggravated assault, use of an imitation firearm, and kidnapping under s. 21(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, but acquitted him of forcible confinement.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' amended statement of defence, alleging a continuing pattern of disruptive conduct at examinations for discovery, breaches of court orders, certificates of non-attendance, failure to produce documents, potential spoliation, and failure to answer undertakings and refusals.

The court examined each ground individually and collectively, finding that the defendants' conduct, while imperfect, did not rise to the extraordinary level warranting the striking of pleadings.

The motion to strike was dismissed.

The defendants were awarded partial indemnity costs of $7,500 payable in the cause.