Superior Court of Justice

This motion concerned competing applications between two sets of shareholders of a family farm corporation regarding the enforcement of a settlement agreement for the division of corporate assets.

The agreement included a 'tax condition' requiring each party's tax counsel approval in their sole discretion.

One party refused to waive this condition, citing tax uncertainties.

The court analyzed the duty to exercise contractual discretion in good faith, finding that the refusal was not a good faith exercise of discretion, as the concerns were abstract or previously known.

The court enforced the minutes of settlement and further ruled that a general increase in milk quota, not explicitly addressed in the settlement, should be considered an 'other asset' of the corporation to be divided equally, rather than solely benefiting the party receiving the quota.

The court held a case management conference to address multiple ongoing and acrimonious actions between the parties following a Court of Appeal decision that found the respondent's appeal of an undefended trial decision to be an abuse of process.

The court provided directions and timetables for determining the scope of the remaining 'seminal' action, deferred a related action for recovery of funds, and ordered the dismissal of an action regarding a false criminal complaint.

The court also addressed the status of various other related actions, including claims against former counsel, and set schedules for future case management conferences and motion hearings.

This ruling addresses an application by Ramin Rayegan-Tafreshi for leave to cross-examine affiants of Information to Obtain (ITO) documents related to wiretap authorizations and a general warrant.

The applicant sought to challenge the investigative necessity for the initial wiretap authorization and the reasonable grounds for the general warrant.

The court granted leave to cross-examine the affiant regarding the wiretap's investigative necessity, finding that the ITO contained conclusory and potentially misleading statements about alternative investigative techniques.

However, the court denied leave to cross-examine the affiant regarding the general warrant, concluding that the applicant's challenge was a facial attack on the warrant's validity that could be addressed through legal argument without cross-examination.

The accused, Jennifer Castillo, was charged with arson (s. 434 Criminal Code) and wilfully causing property damage exceeding $5,000 (s. 430 Criminal Code) following a fire at her rented basement unit.

The court, relying on circumstantial evidence and expert testimony, found that the accused had exclusive opportunity to start the fire and that it was intentionally set.

The defence's theory of an accidental fire caused by a space heater was rejected as speculative.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, concluding that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally or recklessly caused the fire.

This endorsement addresses the appropriate resolution of costs and clarification of damages following a wrongful dismissal summary judgment motion.

The court determined that for the purpose of comparing a judgment to a Rule 49 offer, damages awards for wrongful dismissal are reduced by statutory termination payments.

Consequently, the plaintiff did not obtain a result more favourable than their Rule 49 offer, nor did the defendant's offer trigger cost consequences under Rule 49.10(2) as the court's award exceeded it when statutory payments were factored in.

The court also ruled that tax consequences are not relevant in a Rule 49 analysis.

The plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs, and the net value of the judgment was clarified.

The applicants sought declarations that their former home insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify them in an underlying action for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation regarding the sale of their property.

The insurer denied coverage, citing contractual liability exclusion, late notice, and alleged misrepresentation by the insured.

The court applied the Scalera test for duty to defend, finding that while the alleged property damage could fall within coverage, an "entire agreement" clause in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale precluded reliance on oral misrepresentations.

Consequently, the claims were, in substance, based on representations in the sales contract, which were excluded by the policy's contractual liability exclusion.

The application was dismissed.

This case involved a dispute over the accuracy and enforceability of Minutes of Settlement concerning the equalization payment for two properties.

The applicant husband sought to enforce the Minutes as written, which stipulated a $520,000 payment from the respondent wife.

The respondent wife brought a cross-motion for rectification, arguing the amount was a mistake and should have been $260,000 (half the agreed difference in value).

The court found the Minutes ambiguous and that there was no meeting of the minds on the fundamental term of the payment amount.

Consequently, the applicant's motion to enforce was dismissed, and the respondent's cross-motion for rectification was also dismissed due to a lack of a prior definite agreement.

The court set aside the disputed Minutes of Settlement and confirmed the validity of an earlier set of Minutes.

An application by a litigation guardian to approve a settlement on behalf of her son, a person under disability, was dismissed.

The settlement for statutory accident benefits was reached almost four years prior, but the materials for judicial approval were significantly delayed.

By the time the application was before the court, the minor had turned 18, and his consent, required under Rule 7.08(4)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, was not obtained or filed, leading to the dismissal of the application.

The offender pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm for his role in a vicious, gang-style attack on a fellow inmate at a correctional facility.

The victim suffered a brain bleed and lingering effects.

The Crown sought 18-24 months in custody, while the defence sought 12 months.

The court considered the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and parity, noting a co-accused received 6 months for simple assault.

The offender was sentenced to 15 months in custody (net 198 days after pre-sentence credit) followed by two years of probation.

The applicant landlord sought declaratory relief and vacant possession, arguing the commercial lease expired because the tenant's renewal was void due to a failure to agree on new terms.

The court found the tenant validly exercised its renewal option, as the lease's renewal provision was unconditional, requiring only timely written notice.

The court dismissed the landlord's application, holding that the "review and discussion" of renewed lease terms was to follow, not precede, the successful renewal.

The Society sought an order for extended society care with no access for two young children.

The mother sought the return of the children to her care subject to supervision.

The court found the children in need of protection due to historical housing instability and conflict, but noted the mother had made significant progress, secured stable housing, and improved her parenting skills.

The court heavily criticized the Society for failing to expand the mother's access and for unreasonably opposing a temporary court order for overnight visits.

Concluding that the protection concerns could be mitigated by terms of supervision, the court dismissed the Society's application for extended care and ordered the children returned to the mother under a 9-month supervision order.

The Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation brought an action seeking a declaration that a 1.4-mile strip of Sauble Beach (the Disputed Beach) is part of their unsurrendered reserve land under Treaty 72 of 1854.

The court found that the Imperial Crown's surveyor, Charles Rankin, improperly marked the northern terminus of the reserve's eastern boundary further south than the Treaty stipulated, depriving the First Nation of the promised coastline.

The court held that the Imperial Crown and the federal Crown breached their sui generis fiduciary duties and acted inconsistently with the honour of the Crown by failing to properly survey, protect, and preserve the reserve.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments that the First Nation's claim was defeated by Crown patents, the doctrine of bona fide purchaser for value without notice, the Limitations Act, laches, dedication, or proprietary estoppel.

The court declared that the Disputed Beach remains unsurrendered reserve land for the sole use and benefit of the First Nation.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following the dismissal of motions by UD Trading Group and Rutmet for intervention and consolidation, and a cross-motion by TransAsia Private Capital Ltd. (TAP) for vexatious litigation.

The court had previously ordered a stay of proceedings on its own initiative.

The UD Group sought costs from TAP, while TAP primarily argued for each party to bear their own costs, or alternatively, sought partial indemnity costs in the cause.

The court rejected the relevance of a subsequent Singapore judgment to the costs determination and ultimately ordered that all participating parties bear their own costs of the dismissed motions and cross-motion.

The accused, Bernard LaCombe, was found guilty of one count of sexual assault involving four non-consensual sexual acts with an intimate partner.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the intimate partner relationship and breach of trust, and mitigating factors such as the accused's health issues and the out-of-character nature of the offences.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of three and a half to four and a half years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court sentenced the accused to three years in a penitentiary, along with a five-year firearms prohibition and a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

The plaintiff, Songbird Life Sciences Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, Connectus Services Ltd. and Connectus Services Ltd. C.O.B. as Connectus Global, for unpaid invoices related to the supply of COVID-19 testing products.

The defendants admitted the debt but argued that a subsequent payment plan constituted a new contract and that they suffered damages due to the plaintiff's refusal to continue supply, which should be set off.

The court found no new consideration for the payment plan to be a new contract and no evidence of damages for set-off.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The Applicant brought a summary judgment motion seeking orders for sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence of the children, child support, Section 7 expenses, and equalization.

The Respondent had a history of breaching court orders, criminal harassment, and intentional under-employment.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial, imputed income to the Respondent, and ordered child support, arrears, fixed Section 7 contributions, and an equalization payment to the Applicant.

The Respondent was granted supervised parenting time with conditions for review.

This endorsement addresses the admissibility of extensive hearsay evidence, particularly statements attributed to children, presented via affidavit in a family law trial.

The court reiterated that while evidentiary rules may be flexible for children's best interests, the hearsay rule is not relaxed for trial affidavits.

It emphasized the "necessity and reliability" test for admitting children's hearsay, finding that the impugned statements lacked sufficient procedural and substantive reliability, especially given the children's vulnerabilities and the absence of independent corroboration.

The court largely disallowed the admission of the contested hearsay evidence.

The Father brought an urgent motion to add his girlfriend, L.H., to the list of approved parenting supervisors, as his parenting time was supervised due to concerns about alcohol abuse.

The Mother opposed, arguing that the girlfriend's new relationship with the Father could compromise her objectivity as a supervisor, especially given the Father's denial of his alcohol issues and his lack of candour regarding the relationship.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Mother's refusal to be reasonable and in the children's best interests.

The judge noted the Father's manipulative conduct, his failure to utilize other already-approved supervisors, and his misrepresentation of L.H.'s role.

The offender, Eric Wolfe Riedl, pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and unauthorized possession of a loaded, restricted handgun.

The offences occurred during a traffic stop where police found cocaine and a loaded .22 calibre pistol with a tampered serial number in his rental vehicle.

The Crown sought a global sentence of four years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the serious nature of the offences, the combination of drugs and guns, and the tampered firearm.

Mitigating factors included the offender's relative youth, first-offender status (apart from a bail breach), guilty plea, and significant rehabilitation efforts since the offences.

The court imposed a global sentence of 45 months imprisonment, comprising three years for the firearm offence and one year consecutive for the drug offence, with credit for pre-sentence custody and stringent bail conditions.

The court fixed costs following a successful motion by Southside Construction and the Architects to stay the City of Windsor's claims due to abuse of process.

The City had failed to immediately disclose complete terms of settlement agreements with third-party subtrades, which fundamentally altered the litigation landscape.

The court found the City's conduct egregious and awarded substantial indemnity costs to Southside and the Architects, emphasizing that such an elevated scale was appropriate to express judicial disapproval and deter similar future behaviour, though not egregious enough for full indemnity costs.