Superior Court of Justice

The defendants, Shukri Ali Ali and The Commonwell Mutual Insurance Group, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay pursuant to Rule 24 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, Yassin Aden Osman, did not oppose the motion and failed to appear.

The court found that the plaintiff's default was intentional and contumelious, demonstrating disrespect for the court process through serial violations of court orders and non-attendance.

Additionally, the delay was found to be inordinate and inexcusable, giving rise to a substantial risk that a fair trial would not be possible, particularly due to the loss of witnesses and inability to inspect the vehicle.

The court granted the motion, dismissing the action against all defendants and awarding costs to the moving defendants.

This is a costs endorsement following a parenting and grandparent contact trial.

The respondent, Brittney Trovao, was successful at trial and sought costs against the applicants, Nemanja Grujicic and Georgina Grujicic.

The court found Georgina Grujicic to be the driving force behind the litigation and ordered her to pay $50,000.00 in costs to Brittney Trovao, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The court considered the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, Brittney's success, Georgina's unreasonable conduct (though not bad faith), and Georgina's ability to pay, allowing for installment payments.

No costs were ordered against Nemanja Grujicic.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day focused hearing where the applicant was entirely successful in setting aside Quebec matrimonial instruments.

The applicant sought costs of over $400,000, while the respondent proposed approximately $184,000.

The court, applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, awarded the applicant $200,000 in fees and $65,106.73 in disbursements.

The court noted that neither party's offer to settle contained a true element of compromise, as the underlying issue was binary, and found some of the applicant's claimed hours for general research and costs submissions to be excessive and disproportionate, despite the high stakes and complexity of proving foreign law.

Miguel Ngabirano pleaded guilty to kidnapping, robbery, and use of an imitation firearm.

The court considered general sentencing principles, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the collateral immigration consequences of a custodial sentence.

The Crown sought 15 months custody, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence or a shorter custodial term.

The court imposed a sentence of three months custody followed by 21 months less a day conditional sentence and three years probation, specifically tailoring the custodial portion to be less than six months to preserve the offender's right to appeal a potential removal order to Burundi, an unstable country.

This endorsement from a case management conference addresses procedural issues in two related actions.

The court set a timeline for the defendant's anti-SLAPP motion in one action and ordered that any anti-SLAPP motion in the second action be heard concurrently, citing efficiency and consistency.

The court also set a timeline for the defendant's Rule 59 motion regarding a prior costs order.

The defendant's request for an out-of-town judge due to his media status was denied, with the court clarifying that such appointments are typically reserved for cases involving local lawyers to avoid perceived bias.

The applicant mother sought to change the child support provisions of a separation agreement, alleging a material change in the respondent father's income due to undeclared cash, improper business deductions, and other sources.

The separation agreement had fixed the father's "estimated" income at $70,000.

The court found that the applicant failed to discharge her onus to prove a material change in the respondent's income for the years 2016-2021, except for a one-time top-up payment for 2020.

The court dismissed the application to change the separation agreement, emphasizing that the starting point for assessing actual income is line 150 of the tax return, and rejecting most of the applicant's claims regarding imputed income from cash, lifestyle, and business deductions.

The accused, Andrew Douglas, brought an application for a directed verdict of acquittal on a first-degree murder charge at the close of the Crown's case.

The application was opposed by the Crown.

The court dismissed the application, finding that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence for a properly instructed jury to reasonably find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the first-degree murder charge, particularly regarding planning and deliberation.

The case was allowed to proceed to the jury on the first-degree murder charge.

The appellant, convicted of sexual assault and sexual exploitation, appealed his conviction.

The appeal focused on the trial judge's assessment of credibility, particularly regarding the absence of motive to fabricate.

The court found that the trial judge erred by treating the absence of evidence of motive to fabricate as a proven lack of motive, which improperly enhanced the complainants' credibility, especially since the defence did not raise the issue.

This was deemed a significant and fatal error, leading to the quashing of convictions and ordering a new trial.

The defendant, Adil Zeno, was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to murder.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors such as his criminal record, lack of coercion, and the compounding of victim suffering, and mitigating factors including his youth and efforts towards rehabilitation.

The Crown sought a sentence of 4-5 years, while the defence sought 18-24 months.

The court imposed a sentence of three and a half years, which was covered by the 44 months of pre-sentence custody, resulting in a sentence of one day in jail in addition to time served.

A 10-year prohibition order and a DNA order were also imposed, but probation was denied.

The applicant brought a motion for exclusive possession of the jointly-owned matrimonial home and an interim restraining order against the respondent.

The respondent had recently returned to the home from the UK and engaged in intimidating and verbally abusive behaviour towards the applicant and their adult children.

The court found that the applicant and children had reasonable grounds to fear for their psychological and physical safety.

The motion for a restraining order and exclusive possession was granted.

The defendants moved for summary judgment against the plaintiff, seeking the return of a service dog, Briggs, arguing there was no genuine issue for trial as the plaintiff was not the dog's owner.

The plaintiff opposed, citing incomplete discovery and insufficient evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a fair and just adjudication required a trial due to credibility issues and a deficient record, especially given the constraints of simplified procedure rules which limit pre-trial proceedings like cross-examinations.

In this undefended trial, the plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained from a fall on the defendant's property.

The defendant, who was the plaintiff's landlord, was noted in default.

The court assessed damages based on the plaintiff's testimony and various admissible records, including medical reports and expert evidence.

The court found that the hazardous condition of the property caused the fall and awarded the plaintiff general damages, special damages, and lost income, along with pre-judgment interest and costs.

This endorsement addresses a procedural breach in a motion to change spousal support.

The respondent improperly filed an affidavit in a related Family Responsibility Office enforcement proceeding, which included a confidential transcript of a case/settlement conference.

The court found this violated Rule 17(23) of the Family Law Rules and the Court Transcript Standards and Procedures Manual.

The judge ordered the immediate removal and destruction of the affidavit and transcript, prohibited the respondent from relying upon or disseminating any confidential statements from the conference, and mandated the destruction of all copies.

A follow-up appearance was scheduled to ensure compliance and explain the error.

Ryan James Ruznisky pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol, his fourth such conviction.

The court considered aggravating factors including a high blood alcohol content (207-242 mg/100mL), high speed, and collision with a residence, and mitigating factors such as his genuine remorse, significant efforts at rehabilitation for long-standing substance abuse, and a history of childhood sexual abuse.

The Crown sought six months imprisonment, while the defence sought the mandatory minimum of 120 days.

The court imposed a sentence of 120 days imprisonment, a three-year driving prohibition, and 18 months probation with a counselling requirement, emphasizing the principle of restraint and the offender's rehabilitative progress.

The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, seeking a finding that the defendant was liable for damages arising from Souphin Inlakhana’s 43-day imprisonment after a judicial decision made her eligible for accelerated parole review (APR).

The plaintiffs alleged false imprisonment, negligence, misfeasance in public office, and Charter breaches (ss. 7, 9, 11(i), 12).

The defendant sought dismissal of the motion.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding no Charter violation or negligence in the administrative delay of release, as the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and Parole Board of Canada (PBC) followed statutorily mandated processes within established timeframes, despite some delays.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the defendant on this specific claim.

The Applicants, Nordstrom Canada Retail, Inc. and related entities, sought an Amended and Restated Initial Order (AIRO) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The motion, unopposed and supported by the Monitor, requested an extension of the stay period, approval of a Key Employee Retention Plan (KERP) and its associated charge, and increases to the Administration and Directors' Charges.

The court granted the AIRO, finding the stay extension appropriate given the applicants' good faith and diligence in pursuing an orderly wind-down, the KERP reasonable and necessary for restructuring, and the charge increases modest and well-supported.

Following trial in a family law dispute, the court rejected the applicant father's request that the children relocate from Toronto to the UAE and found that sole decision-making and primary residence with the mother remained in the children's best interests.

The court accepted evidence of family violence, the children's trauma-related diagnoses, and the father's lack of insight into the causes of the estrangement, and held that any parenting time should occur only in accordance with the children's wishes on reasonable notice.

Using the applicant's 2022 income, the court fixed ongoing child support, retroactive support arrears, section 7 arrears, and high-range indefinite spousal support.

On property, the court held the Islamic Mahr was an enforceable contractual debt that had to be included in equalization calculations and declined to order an unequal division under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

This trial addressed various family law issues following the separation of the parties, including divorce, child support, spousal support, equalization of net family property, and post-separation adjustments.

The court declined to impute income to either party based on intentional underemployment, finding their employment choices child-focused, but imputed income to the Applicant due to an accommodation benefit.

The Applicant was found to owe significant child support arrears.

The Respondent's claim for extraordinary expenses was denied due to lack of prior consultation.

The Respondent's claim for spousal support was denied.

Equalization and post-separation adjustments resulted in a net payment from the Respondent to the Applicant, but the overall financial balance, including child support arrears, resulted in the Applicant owing the Respondent a substantial sum.

This endorsement concerns a costs award following a trial where S.B. was the entirely successful party.

S.B. sought full indemnity costs of $157,681.47, citing G.S.'s bad faith conduct, failure to follow court orders, and causing significant delays and unnecessary litigation steps.

The court found G.S.'s conduct unreasonable and in bad faith, noting the waste of court time.

After accounting for some overlaps with previously ordered costs and a trial adjournment not attributable to G.S., the court found the requested fees reasonable and ordered G.S. to pay S.B. $146,000 in costs.

The applicants initiated a proceeding by application seeking declarations and substantial damages related to an anaerobic digester, and subsequently moved to add a party and for injunctive relief to prevent the digester's reactivation.

The court found the application procedurally inappropriate and outside its jurisdiction under the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly due to the presence of material facts in dispute and the complex nature of the claims (nuisance and negligence).

Consequently, the court converted the application into an action, directing the applicants to file a Statement of Claim, and denied the immediate injunctive relief on the basis that it was not available in an improperly commenced application.