Superior Court of Justice

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 defendants brought motions for summary judgment in a civil action arising from the plaintiff's arrest and prosecution for assault during a family law dispute.

The plaintiff claimed malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of mental suffering, negligent investigation, false arrest, false imprisonment, and Charter violations against her ex-husband, the OPP officers, and the Crown.

The court found that the criminal proceedings were not terminated in the plaintiff's favour, as the charges were withdrawn pursuant to a diversion agreement, and there was no evidence of malice or investigative deficiency on the part of the police.

Against the ex-husband, the court found insufficient evidence of deliberate falsehood to police or malicious intent.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action against all defendants.

Costs ruling following a jury trial in which the plaintiff succeeded on a malicious prosecution claim but failed on wrongful arrest and excessive force claims.

The jury awarded $63,900 in damages, which exceeded the plaintiff's Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court applied a 20% reduction to counsel fees to reflect divided success, deducted $20,000 for the use of two senior counsel, and disallowed expert disbursements of $19,700 related to the unsuccessful claims.

The court rejected a distributive costs approach and held that the plaintiff was entitled to substantial indemnity costs from the date of the Rule 49 offer, awarding total costs of $180,220.70.

Following a protracted family law dispute, the parties proceeded to trial on the remaining issues of decision-making responsibility for their two special needs children and the respondent's claim for financial compensation after being removed from the applicant's employment benefits.

The court granted the applicant final decision-making authority for health care decisions, subject to a consultation requirement, due to the respondent's history of delaying medical interventions.

Educational, religious, and cultural decisions were ordered to be made jointly.

The respondent's claim for compensation regarding the benefit plan was dismissed as he had his own coverage and proved no damages.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(a) and (e), seeking $116,380.50.

The court found the plaintiffs ordinarily reside in Alberta with no assets in Ontario, satisfying the threshold under Rule 56.01(1)(a).

However, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate impecuniosity or that their claim had a good chance of success, as there was no expert evidence on breach of the standard of care, no corroboration for the minor plaintiff's version of events, and no evidence of compensable mental trauma.

The court ordered $50,000 in staged security for costs, significantly reducing the amount sought due to the defendants' procedural failings, and awarded $5,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The applicant municipality sought a permanent injunction to enforce its Zoning, Property Standards, and Yard Maintenance By-laws against the respondents.

The respondents were using a property zoned for prime agriculture to house multiple recreational vehicles, trailers, and a cinderblock shed, and had accumulated garbage and debris.

The court found clear breaches of the by-laws and granted the permanent injunction, ordering the removal of the trailers and debris.

The plaintiff franchisee operated a pizza franchise for 17 years.

After the franchise system was sold, the new franchisor terminated the plaintiff's month-to-month franchise agreement on two days' notice following failed renewal negotiations.

The plaintiff subsequently protested outside the store, leading the franchisor to counterclaim for nuisance, defamation, trespass, and intentional interference with economic relations.

The court held that the franchisor was entitled to terminate the agreement but failed to provide reasonable notice, awarding the plaintiff $10,000.

The court dismissed the franchisor's counterclaims for nuisance, defamation, and interference, finding the protests were largely peaceful and the statements were either justified or fair comment, but awarded $100 in nominal damages for a minor trespass involving gluing posters to the store windows.

Following the dismissal of the defendant insurer's motion for summary judgment, the successful plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $21,666.43.

The defendant argued for an award of $8,000.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, the court noted the moderate complexity of the matter but recognized the importance of the issues and the defendant's failure to confirm the motion, which resulted in costs thrown away.

The court fixed costs payable to the plaintiffs at $15,000 all-inclusive.

The mother brought a motion to change a final order, seeking sole decision-making, primary residence, and child support variation, while proposing the father's parenting time be at the children's discretion.

The father, who had not seen the children in over a year, sought a return to a specified parenting schedule.

The court found a material change in circumstances and granted the mother sole decision-making on consent, while adjusting child support based on the father's current income.

Finding evidence of parental alienation and psychological abuse by the mother, the court declined to leave parenting time to the children's discretion and adjourned the issue to allow the parties to arrange reunification therapy.

The court rendered a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder under s. 672.34 of the Criminal Code.

Applying s. 16 and the interpretation of wrongfulness in R. v. Oommen, the court held that the accused proved on a balance of probabilities that he was incapable, at the time of the acts, of knowing they were wrong.

The only expert evidence consisted of two psychiatric reports that unequivocally supported the NCR defence and were accepted by the court.

The court declined to make a disposition itself and ordered detention in a mental health facility or hospital pending a disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board under s. 672.47(1).

The applicant sought spousal support, unjust enrichment relief, and a mutual no-contact order arising from a disputed common-law relationship with an extremely wealthy respondent.

The court found the parties cohabited in a conjugal relationship from January 1, 2019 to August 23, 2023, applying the Molodowich factors holistically and relying heavily on contemporaneous records, caregiving evidence, and surreptitious recordings admitted for their high probative value.

The applicant failed to establish compensatory entitlement, but succeeded on a non-compensatory basis because of the enormous income disparity, her disability, and the steep post-separation drop from a highly luxurious standard of living.

The court imputed support income to the respondent using investible assets, fixed support at approximately $200,000 monthly for three years, and converted that award into a $3,000,000 lump sum.

The unjust enrichment claim and request for a restraining order were dismissed.

The applicant lender sought appointment of a court-appointed receiver over three parcels of vacant land owned by the guarantor to conduct a sale in satisfaction of a $10 million guarantee.

The respondent guarantor and first mortgagee resisted the receivership.

The court upheld the validity of the applicant's second mortgages despite the absence of the first mortgagee's consent, finding the consent requirement was not a true condition precedent and the authorization and direction was unconditional.

However, the court declined to appoint a receiver, finding it unnecessary given the limited nature of the assets and the absence of any business to operate or preserve.

The guarantor was permitted 90 days to effect a private sale, with the applicant retaining the right to return for further relief.

The accused was charged with multiple drug trafficking and possession offences.

He pleaded guilty to four counts of trafficking and one count of possession of proceeds of crime.

The remaining issue at trial was whether he possessed over 300 grams of fentanyl found in a backpack in an apartment for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's access to the apartment, his drug dealing activities with an undercover officer, and the presence of his identification in the backpack.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as implausible and found that the only reasonable inference was that he had knowledge and control of the fentanyl.

The accused was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action for damages arising from an explosion and fire, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the plaintiffs engaged in egregious and abusive conduct, including advancing unfounded and shifting damages theories, failing to produce relevant documents, and relying on concocted evidence.

The court awarded the defendants costs on a partial indemnity scale up to the date of their reasonable offer to settle, and on a substantial indemnity scale thereafter.

The plaintiffs were also held liable for the costs of the third and fourth parties, as their involvement was a natural and inevitable consequence of the litigation.

Total costs and disbursements were fixed at $2,339,433.08.

The applicant purchased the assets of a media company from secured debenture holders pursuant to an Assets Purchase Agreement that expressly excluded employment contracts and related liabilities.

When the predecessor company's union brought an application before the OLRB under s. 69 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, the applicant settled for unpaid wages and vacation pay owed to employees prior to the closing date and sought indemnification under the APA.

The court held that the settlement payments fell within the excluded liabilities under the APA and that the applicant was entitled to full indemnification of $58,000, comprising the settlement amount and legal fees.

The court further found that the applicant's public announcement of its acquisition did not constitute a breach of the APA's confidentiality clause and would not, in any event, entitle the respondents to set off the indemnification owed.

The Applicants, operating a fully integrated cannabis business across the United States, sought an Initial Order under the CCAA due to severe liquidity constraints and an inability to meet interest obligations on senior notes.

The court granted the Initial Order, including a 10-day stay of proceedings, which was extended to non-applicant subsidiaries to maintain stability and preserve value for pending sale transactions.

The court also appointed FTI Consulting Canada Inc. as Monitor, authorized the payment of certain pre-filing arrears to critical suppliers, approved Administration and Directors' Charges, granted a limited sealing order for confidential commercial information, and authorized the Parent Company to act as foreign representative for Chapter 15 proceedings in the United States.

The accused admitted to killing the victim but sought a finding of Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) under s. 16(1) of the Criminal Code.

Both the Crown and Defence agreed the accused should be found NCR due to schizophrenia.

The court initially found the evidentiary record insufficient and appointed amicus to cross-examine the forensic psychiatrist, specifically regarding the accused's police interview and potential motive.

After hearing supplemental evidence, the court was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the accused was in active psychosis and lacked the capacity to appreciate the moral wrongfulness of his actions.

The accused was found NCR and the disposition was deferred to the Ontario Review Board.

The plaintiff, a United Kingdom manufacturer, brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant for unpaid invoices totalling £65,218.67 for custom-manufactured equipment.

The defendant was noted in default for failing to defend the proceeding.

Applying the test from Elekta Ltd. v. Rodkin, the court found liability established based on deemed admissions in the statement of claim and supporting affidavit evidence.

Default judgment was granted for the full amount with pre-judgment interest at 5.3% under the Courts of Justice Act and costs of $2,527.00.

The applicants sought a final order approving a proposed arrangement under section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act to effect a recapitalization transaction.

A group of Class B shareholders opposed the arrangement, arguing the dilution of existing shareholders to 1% of new shares was unfair.

The court found the arrangement was put forward in good faith, had a valid business purpose, and was fair and reasonable given the company's financial distress and the lack of viable alternatives other than CCAA proceedings.

The court also granted a sealing order over confidential exhibits containing third-party bids, finding disclosure would pose a serious risk to important commercial interests.

The applicant, charged with human trafficking offences alongside co-accused, brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to the anticipated end of trial was 48.36 months.

After deducting 11.29 months of defence delay, the net delay of 37.07 months exceeded the 30-month ceiling.

The court found the Crown failed to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness, noting a lack of vigilance during the Ontario Court of Justice case management process where the case was allowed to drift while awaiting co-accused counsel retainers.

The application was granted and the charges were stayed.