Superior Court of Justice

This criminal trial concerned George Brazier, who faced charges of manslaughter and three counts of trafficking in controlled substances (fentanyl, heroin, and cocaine).

The Crown alleged that Brazier sold fentanyl and cocaine to James Glover, who subsequently died from a fentanyl overdose.

The court found Brazier guilty of trafficking fentanyl and cocaine, and of unlawful act manslaughter, concluding that his conduct in supplying the fentanyl significantly contributed to Glover's death and was objectively dangerous.

The charge of trafficking heroin was acquitted due to insufficient evidence.

The appellant, S.B., appealed a decision by the Consent and Capacity Board (the Board) that upheld a physician's finding of his incapacity to manage property due to Huntington's disease.

The Board applied a two-part test under the Substitute Decisions Act, finding S.B. could understand financial information but could not appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his financial decisions.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the appeal on a standard of palpable and overriding error for mixed questions of fact and law.

The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the Board correctly applied the capacity test by considering S.B.'s lack of insight into his condition's impact on his finances, coupled with his history of poor financial management and vulnerability to exploitation.

The court also rejected the argument that a pre-existing Power of Attorney nullified the capacity assessment, as this issue was not raised at the initial Board hearing.

This endorsement concerns a motion by Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation and its subsidiaries (the Applicants) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for approval of a Subscription Agreement, a reverse vesting order (ARVO), releases for various parties, a sealing order, and an extension of the stay of proceedings.

The proposed transaction involves First Generation Capital (FGC), the majority shareholder and secured creditor, acquiring the Applicants' business via a credit bid and share transaction, with excluded assets and liabilities vested out to Residual Cos.

The court analyzed the necessity and fairness of the ARVO structure, the sales process, the benefit to creditors compared to bankruptcy, and the appropriateness of the releases, ultimately granting all requested relief.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's action under rules 57.03(2) and 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure due to her failure to pay costs awarded against her in two separate court Orders totaling $12,500.

The plaintiff argued impecuniosity.

The court, while acknowledging the plaintiff's impecuniosity, found that her ongoing litigation was vexatious and that impecuniosity was not a shield for unreasonable conduct or a failure to abide by court orders.

The court conditionally dismissed the plaintiff's action, ordering her to pay the outstanding costs by a specific deadline, and fixed additional costs for the current motion.

This case involved married spouses who separated and had two children.

The court addressed remaining issues after a partial settlement, including parenting arrangements, spousal support, and child support.

The court ordered shared parenting with preferential time allocated to the Mother, while denying the Mother's request to relocate with the children.

Income was imputed to the Mother for support purposes, and the Father was ordered to pay spousal support and ongoing child support with retroactive adjustments.

The plaintiff, Casaplata Inc., brought an urgent motion seeking leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a property owned by the individual defendants (the "Owners") to secure a prospective future judgment.

The property in question was not security for the plaintiff's original mortgage.

The defendant Sub-Prime Mortgage Corporation opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that a CPL is not intended to secure a damages claim or to preserve assets for future enforcement.

The court also found that the plaintiff misrepresented the urgency of the motion and failed to provide sufficient evidentiary support for its claims, leading to a substantial indemnity costs award against the plaintiff.

At the commencement of a family law trial, the applicant brought a motion to adjourn the trial and strike the respondent's pleadings due to the respondent's failure to provide court-ordered disclosure.

The court dismissed the motion to adjourn and strike, noting the extensive procedural history, previous orders mandating the trial proceed, and the primary objective of the Family Law Rules to resolve matters efficiently.

The court granted the applicant's request for a non-dissipation order regarding the respondent's shares in certain companies.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence (drugs, cell phone data) seized from a motor vehicle, alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the initial warrantless seizure of the vehicle was lawful under section 489(2) of the Criminal Code, as it was offence-related property.

While there was a two-month delay in obtaining a search warrant for the vehicle and its contents, which constituted a breach of section 8 of the Charter, the court determined that this delay was not due to negligence or wanton disregard but rather the investigating officer's overwhelming workload and health issues.

Applying the R. v. Grant framework, the court concluded that the Charter breach was minor, did not itself produce the evidence, and did not significantly impact the accused's privacy interests, especially given the serious nature of the human trafficking charges.

Therefore, the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and the application to exclude was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking to have the respondent father found in contempt of several court orders, including alleged failures to administer medication to their child, transporting the child on an e-bike, producing an accurate income valuation report, and complying with costs orders.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the applicant had not proven the alleged breaches beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the required standard for contempt.

The decision clarified that a failure to comply with a payment order is excluded as a ground for contempt under the Family Law Rules and that the orders regarding medical decision-making and the valuation report were not sufficiently clear and unequivocal to support a contempt finding.

This is a costs and interest decision following a trial where Ben-Air Systems Inc. (plaintiff) was found to have a lien and damages for breach of contract, and the defendants' counterclaim was denied.

Ben-Air sought substantial or partial indemnity costs, while Castlemore Plumbing Limited (defendant) sought costs against Ben-Air and its principal.

The court found Ben-Air to be the successful party overall, recovering 43% of its initial claim.

However, the court criticized the conduct of the principals from both parties, finding them equally censurable.

As a result, neither side was awarded substantial indemnity costs, and no personal liability for costs was imposed on Ben-Air's principal.

Ben-Air was awarded $38,000 in partial indemnity costs, approximately 43% of its partial indemnity claim.

Prejudgment interest was also calculated on two amounts at 0.5% per annum.

The Applicant sought an adjournment of trial and an order striking the Respondent's pleadings due to alleged non-disclosure and breaches of prior court orders.

The Applicant also requested a non-dissipation order regarding the Respondent's shares in certain companies.

The court denied the adjournment and the request to strike pleadings, emphasizing the long procedural history, previous judicial directives for the trial to proceed, and the primary objective of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that late disclosure could be addressed through negative inferences and costs at trial.

A non-dissipation order was granted, but only as it affected the Respondent's shares, not third parties.

The court issued a costs endorsement following two motions where success was roughly evenly divided between the applicant mother and the respondent father.

The mother succeeded on joint decision-making responsibility with final say and child support for her older son, but not on primary residence for the child T. The father succeeded on an equal shared parenting regime but not on sole decision-making.

Neither party acted in bad faith.

Despite the mother's more reasonable offers to settle, they did not warrant special costs consequences.

The court ordered each party to bear their own costs, finding this to be the most fair, just, and reasonable decision given the balanced outcomes and the objective of encouraging settlement.

The court also addressed two remaining issues: child support for T. (including section 7 expenses) and holiday parenting time, remaining seized of these matters.

The Crown sought to appeal the respondent's acquittal on assault charges but failed to personally serve the Notice of Appeal within the 30-day limit, citing concerns about using local police due to the trial judge's finding of excessive force.

The Crown brought an application for substituted service or to dispense with service, which the court dismissed because the Crown had not attempted personal service via a process server.

However, the court granted the Crown's alternative request for a 30-day extension of time to effect personal service, finding the Crown had demonstrated a bona fide intention to appeal, explained the delay, and raised grounds with some merit.

The Appellant, Nodebe Agbapu, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding him incapable of consenting to anti-psychotic medication.

The Respondent, Dr. Tariq Munshi, brought a motion for the appointment of amicus curiae to assist the court, as the self-represented Appellant had not taken steps to perfect the appeal.

The court granted the motion, appointing Jennifer Danch as amicus curiae, finding it appropriate and necessary in the interest of justice to ensure the integrity of the judicial process.

The Children's Aid Society sought a secure treatment order for a 14-year-old child under s. 164 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, due to severe self-harming behaviors linked to mental disorders.

The child and mother opposed, while the father supported the application.

The court found all six statutory criteria for secure treatment were met, including the child's mental disorder, recent serious self-harm, the effectiveness and availability of the proposed program at Syl Apps Youth Centre, and the lack of less restrictive alternatives.

The court also exercised its residual discretion, concluding that secure treatment was in the child's best interests despite the mother's objections and potential limitations on the placement duration.

A 180-day commitment was deemed necessary.

The applicant, Tracie L. Galbraith, brought a trust claim against the respondent, Jeremy M. Kinsley, seeking a share of the home he purchased, following their 10-year cohabitation and the birth of three children.

The court found that the parties engaged in a joint family venture and that the respondent was unjustly enriched by the applicant's contributions, which included domestic services and financial support that enabled the respondent to build equity in the property.

A monetary award of $191,000 was granted to the applicant, representing one-half of the adjusted increase in the property's equity, applying a "value-survived" approach.

The plaintiff, acting as Trustee in Bankruptcy, brought a motion for leave to serve an originating process on a defendant located in the United States pursuant to Rule 17.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and for an extension of time for service.

The action sought to recover funds transferred by the bankrupt to his wife as transfers at undervalue or preferences under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that the plaintiff established a good arguable case for a real and substantial connection between Ontario and the claim, as the bankrupt was an Ontario resident and the bankruptcy proceeding was in Ontario.

The court granted leave for service ex juris and extended the time for service, finding no prejudice to the defendant.

The accused, Jude Egwu, was arrested for sexual assault and gave a statement to police after invoking his right to counsel.

His lawyer, a casual friend practicing family and immigration law, provided no legal advice regarding his right to silence or self-incrimination.

A blended voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of the statement.

The court found that while the police complied with s. 10(b) Charter, the lawyer's complete failure to provide advice, coupled with the accused's lack of comprehension of the primary police caution, created a fundamental unfairness in the interrogation process.

Although not a Charter violation attributable to the state, the court exercised its common law power under s. 24(1) of the Charter to exclude the portion of the accused's statement where he became evasive and conspicuously dodged questions about having sex with the complainant, as its admission would infect the appearance of a fair trial.

The appellant, Robert Rak, appealed his conviction for impaired driving, which resulted from a trial where the verdict was determined by a Charter application.

Rak argued that the impaired driving charge should be quashed because the Crown improperly directed the police to lay the charge, the special constable lacked grounds to lay the charge, and the justice of the peace erred in issuing process without a prima facie case.

The appeal court upheld the trial judge's findings that the Crown's communication was a recommendation, not a direction, and that the special constable had the requisite grounds.

While agreeing that the justice of the peace erred in issuing process without a prima facie case, the appeal court found no error in the trial judge's discretionary decision to deny the remedy of quashing the charge, especially since the merits of the impaired driving offence were conceded.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants sought relief arising from Minutes of Settlement concerning the respondents' proposed building of a new three-story house, alleging breaches related to a third-story deck/patio doors overlooking their backyard, and soil addition potentially harming their tree.

The court found no breach of the Minutes of Settlement, determining that the respondents' building plans were in "substantial compliance" with the agreed-upon Revised Zoning Drawings.

The court also found no expert evidence to substantiate the applicants' drainage or tree damage concerns and dismissed the application, noting that the parties had resolved a separate mutual right-of-way issue.