Superior Court of Justice

The accused was tried on a charge of sexual interference arising from historic allegations based largely on the complainant's later-recalled memories of events said to have occurred when she was under sixteen.

The court found that the complainant did not present as fabricated or deliberately false, but held that the reliability of the recovered recollections was a real issue in the absence of contemporaneous corroboration.

Applying the framework in W. (D.), the court concluded that the accused's denial could reasonably be true and that the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

In a long-running family law trial involving parenting and financial issues, the self-represented respondent brought an oral mid-trial motion to amend his Answer to add retroactive and ongoing spousal support claims.

Applying Rule 11(3) of the Family Law Rules and the amendment framework in Moghimi, the court held that permitting the amendment at this late stage would require a lengthy adjournment, further disclosure, and likely additional evidence, causing prejudice to the other party and the child that costs could not remedy.

The court emphasized the pressing need for finality in a high-conflict parenting case, the impact of delay on the child’s best interests, and the administration of justice.

The motion was dismissed.

The unmarried parties, parents of three children, sought a determination on final decision-making responsibility, child support overpayments, and unjust enrichment following their separation.

The court ordered parallel final decision-making responsibility, allocating specific areas to each parent and alternating extracurricular decisions.

The court excluded the respondent's RRSP withdrawals used for legal fees from his income, resulting in a finding that he overpaid child support, which the applicant was ordered to reimburse.

The court dismissed the applicant's claim of a joint family venture but found the respondent was unjustly enriched by the applicant's provision of childcare during her maternity leaves, awarding her $36,933 in compensation.

The self-represented moving party brought a contempt motion under Rule 60.11 against several parties, alleging they knowingly relied on a vacated writ of execution despite a prior order setting aside the underlying default judgment.

The court denied the moving party's adjournment request after applying the relevant factors, finding she had ample time to file evidence and retain counsel.

On the merits, the motion failed because the order alleged to have been breached did not require the responding parties to do or refrain from doing anything, and no evidence of a deliberate and wilful breach was tendered.

The motion was dismissed with full indemnity costs.

Following the breakdown of a common law relationship, the parties disputed entitlement to the proceeds of sale of a custom-built home constructed through a shell corporation on jointly used funds and extensive labour.

The court held that the presumption of resulting trust over the parties’ joint RBC and BMO accounts was rebutted, accepted that the applicant had contributed substantial cash and labour, and found that the respondent’s evidence was frequently not credible.

Applying unjust enrichment and joint family venture principles from Kerr, the court concluded that the applicant’s on-site management, labour, and career sacrifice sufficiently offset the respondent’s greater direct monetary contribution.

The respondent’s claims for line of credit interest, occupation rent, and compensation for lost personal property were dismissed.

The trust funds representing the sale proceeds were ordered to be distributed equally.

The plaintiffs brought an interpleader claim regarding $2,857,831.58 held in escrow following the sale of a real estate development property under a power of sale.

The funds represented a portion of the remaining sale proceeds after the discharge of a first mortgage.

The court found that the joint venturers had structured their investment as a loan to defer capital gains tax, which operated as an equitable charge on the limited partner's interest.

The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to priority distribution of the escrowed funds over the defendants' claims for partnership set-off, pursuant to the trust obligations and section 44 of the Partnerships Act.

The applicant mother sought a divorce, sole decision-making responsibility, and child support for two children.

The respondent father sought to set aside a stepparent adoption order regarding the older child, alleging it was obtained by fraud, and sought primary care of that child to return to the Dominican Republic.

The court found that while the father had fraudulently obtained the biological mother's consent for immigration and the adoption order was based on false representations, setting aside the adoption was not in the child's best interests.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility, ordered supervised parenting time for the father, and ordered the father to pay ongoing child support and arrears.

The defendants were jointly charged with possession of fentanyl and p-Fluorofentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, following the execution of a search warrant at an apartment.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove possession.

The court found that the primary tenant had constructive possession of the drugs based on his connection to the apartment, a backpack containing drugs, and hidden cash.

However, the court acquitted the co-accused, who was found sleeping in the apartment during the raid, concluding there was insufficient evidence to prove he had knowledge or control of the drugs or a prohibited weapon found on the premises.

The co-accused was also acquitted of a breach of release order charge.

The self-represented accused, facing sexual assault and related charges, brought a pre-trial motion seeking the translation of four English disclosure documents into French and an order excluding a modified PowerPoint presentation prepared by the Crown.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the accused failed to demonstrate that the lack of translated documents caused actual prejudice to his ability to make full answer and defence.

The court also held that the Crown's modification of its PowerPoint presentation was a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion, with no evidence of abuse of process or unfairness to the accused.

The applicant, a young Black man, was stopped for a traffic infraction which evolved into a search under the Cannabis Control Act after the officer smelled burnt cannabis and saw a lighter.

A loaded handgun and drugs were found.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) rights, including allegations of racial profiling and police theft of his property.

The court found no breaches of ss. 7, 8, 9, or 10(a).

The court found minor breaches of s. 10(b) due to a 15-minute delay in providing rights to counsel, post-arrest questioning, and steering the applicant to duty counsel.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2), and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial.

The offender, an Indigenous man, was convicted of five counts of second-degree murder after setting fire to a home, killing his intimate partner and four children.

The Crown sought a 25-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 18 years, citing Gladue factors.

The court found that the extreme gravity of the offences and the compelling aggravating factors, including the creation of a firetrap and the vulnerability of the victims, meant the offender's moral blameworthiness was not diminished despite significant Gladue factors.

The court imposed a life sentence with 25 years of parole ineligibility.

The applicant, an automotive manufacturer, sought an interim injunction to prevent the respondent supplier from ceasing delivery of component parts to its Windsor plant amid a pricing dispute.

The respondent challenged the court's jurisdiction, relying on an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the applicant's standard terms requiring all suits to be brought in Michigan.

The court found the clause clear and applicable, and held that the applicant failed to show 'strong cause' to avoid its own standard terms.

The court declined jurisdiction and vacated the previously granted ex parte interim injunction.

The applicant mother brought an interim motion seeking primary residence, sole decision-making, and supervised parenting time for the respondent father, alleging substance abuse and relying on a CAS letter.

The father sought to maintain the status quo of a 2-2-3 equal parenting schedule, explaining that a medical incident was due to prescribed medication and that he had acted protectively by calling the paternal grandmother.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding insufficient evidence to justify the draconian measure of supervised parenting time or a departure from the status quo.

The equal parenting schedule was reinstated with specific safety conditions.

The plaintiff and defendant entered into an oral agreement to open a used car dealership, agreeing to split the costs and profits 50/50.

The defendant purchased a property for the business through his corporation and later sold it for a significant profit after the business venture ended.

The defendant argued the plaintiff repudiated the agreement by failing to contribute his share of the downpayment, thereby forfeiting any right to the profits.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the plaintiff had made his required contributions in cash and via cheques from a friend, corroborated by witness testimony and a bare trust declaration signed by the defendant.

The court awarded the plaintiff $555,493, representing his initial contribution and 50% of the net profit from the property sale, but dismissed his claim for renovation expenses due to lack of proof of payment.

The plaintiff environmental remediation company sued the defendant property owner for $157,941.43 in unpaid invoices.

The defendant counterclaimed for $650,000, alleging the plaintiff over-remediated the property to a higher environmental standard than necessary.

The court found the property was highly contaminated due to a broken sewer pipe and lack of interceptor maintenance by the defendant's tenant.

The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence that the extensive remediation was required and dismissed the over-remediation counterclaim.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, plus contractual interest of 26.7% per annum based on the parties' course of dealing.

The applicants, investors and shareholders of the respondent mortgage investment corporation, sought the appointment of a receiver and manager over the respondent's properties and assets under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent opposed the application and brought a motion to stay or strike the application, arguing technical deficiencies regarding a co-lender not being named as a party and an allegedly defective s. 244 BIA notice.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding no prejudice or injustice from the technical defects.

The court granted the receivership order, concluding it was just and convenient given the respondent's insolvency, default on obligations, and the need for an investigatory receiver to determine the status of the investors' funds and remaining assets.

The creditor successfully brought a motion under s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to lift the automatic stay to pursue fraud claims against the bankrupt.

The bankrupt opposed the motion for four years using delay tactics before consenting on the eve of the hearing.

The court awarded the creditor costs on a substantial indemnity scale, finding the bankrupt's conduct improper and unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding.

The bankrupt was ordered to pay $25,665.52 in costs, which the court noted would survive any discharge.

Criminal trial for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death under s. 320.13(3) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was driving at speeds between 149 km/hr and 192 km/hr in a 60 km/hr zone on a major arterial roadway in Toronto when he failed to negotiate a bend, crossed into oncoming traffic, and struck and killed the victim.

The court rejected defence challenges to the credibility of Crown witnesses including the collision reconstructionist and vehicle examiner, found the accused's driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care, and was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt on all essential elements of the offence.

Finding of guilt entered.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant's claim for retroactive spousal support.

The parties separated in 2008 and signed a separation agreement in 2010, but the applicant did not commence his claim for spousal support until 2017.

The court found that the applicant's seven-year delay in seeking support, without a compelling reason, indicated an end to their financial interdependence.

Furthermore, the court found that the respondent did not have the capacity to pay spousal support given her debt load and income.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the application for spousal support was dismissed.

Family law trial following separation of a married couple with one child.

The parties resolved most issues by consent at the outset of trial, leaving parenting time, spousal support, equalization, occupational rent, and carrying costs.

The court maintained the existing parenting schedule with the mother as primary parent, ordered periodic spousal support of $1,200 per month on compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, awarded $10,000 in net retroactive spousal support after crediting $30,000 in post-separation transfers, and determined an equalization payment of $22,434.29 owed by the applicant to the respondent.

The respondent's claim for occupational rent was dismissed, and the money taken from the respondent's mother's farm account for home renovations was found not to be a loan.

A divorce was granted.