Superior Court of Justice

This motion sought court approval for a proposed settlement affecting a minor plaintiff who sustained a wrist fracture from a slip and fall accident at school.

The defendants denied liability, raising issues of causation and damages.

The action settled for $30,000 at mediation.

The court approved the settlement, finding it reasonable, fair, and in the minor plaintiff's best interests, and also approved the counsel's fees and disbursements, noting the role of contingency fee agreements in providing access to justice.

The plaintiff brought an urgent ex parte motion seeking a preservation order over cryptocurrency, a worldwide Mareva injunction, and an Anton Piller order against the defendants for an outstanding balance of $300,000 USD from a cryptocurrency exchange.

The court granted the preservation order and the Anton Piller order with modifications to protect solicitor-client privilege, but dismissed the Mareva injunction, finding no sufficient risk of asset dissipation to avoid judgment.

The applicant Father sought costs on a full indemnity basis after successfully obtaining an order for the return of the children from Lebanon.

The respondent Mother opposed, arguing for no costs or a reduced amount.

The court found the Mother acted in bad faith by activating Lebanese court proceedings and obtaining a travel ban without notice to the Father, justifying substantial indemnity costs.

However, the Father's claimed costs of $62,661.31 were deemed unreasonable due to overstaffing, excessive hours, and insufficient detail for foreign counsel fees.

The court awarded the Father $25,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

Criminal trial arising from allegations that a church pastor assaulted one complainant in a parking lot, sexually assaulted another adult congregant over several years, sexually exploited a younger congregant while she was 16 and 17, and sexually assaulted her by digital penetration on her 18th birthday.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework, rejected the accused’s evidence as disingenuous and unreliable, and accepted the complainants’ evidence in its material respects, including evidence of spiritual manipulation, grooming, controlling communications, and admissions made during a recorded confrontation.

The court held that implied consent had no application to a purported deliverance-based physical restraint, and found beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainants did not consent and that the accused knew of their non-consent.

Findings of guilt were entered on all counts.

The plaintiff title insurance company brought a motion to extend the time to serve its Statement of Claim, amend the claim to add a new defendant, extend an existing Norwich Order to that new defendant, and obtain a Mareva injunction against all defendants in a mortgage fraud action.

The court granted the extension of time, the amendment, and the Norwich Order, finding the plaintiff established a bona fide claim and the necessity of disclosure to trace fraudulent mortgage proceeds.

The request for a Mareva injunction was adjourned pending the completion of the plaintiff's investigations.

The accused, Walid Wakeel, was charged with dangerous driving causing death, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, and two counts of failing to stop his vehicle after an accident with intent to escape civil or criminal liability.

The trial judge found that the accused's driving was objectively dangerous and constituted a marked departure from the actions of a reasonable person, having accelerated through a red light at high speed.

The court also found that the accused fled the scene with the intent to escape liability, despite arguments that he was in shock or later surrendered to police.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The plaintiff, a commercial tenant, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant landlord from terminating its tenancy and repossessing the premises due to alleged discrepancies in square footage and other complaints.

The plaintiff was in significant rent arrears, having unilaterally abated rent based on its claims.

The court found no serious issue to be tried, emphasizing the tenant's obligation to pay rent in full under a commercial lease, and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the defendants' motion to set aside a default judgment.

The defendants had repeatedly attempted to relitigate issues related to the 2010 default judgment, with previous actions and motions dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process by multiple courts, including the Court of Appeal.

The court found that the defendants' current motion was a fourth attempt to relitigate the same issues without new or cogent evidence, confirming it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion.

Santokh Mahal sought a declaration that his security interest in Golden Miles Food Corporation's personal property was valid and had priority, securing $2,182,914 in advances.

The Applicant, Skymark Finance Corporation, and the Receiver, KSV Restructuring Inc., opposed the motion.

The court granted Mahal a secured claim for $281,600, representing direct personal advances, but dismissed the remaining $1,901,314 claimed for advances made by corporations controlled by Mahal.

The court found that these corporate advances were not indirect debts secured by Mahal's General Security Agreement due to insufficient documentation and lack of PPSA registration by the advancing corporations.

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) brought a motion for default judgment against Yohance Parsons and Hiclass Union Music Business to recover $59,120 in funds stolen from a CIBC client's account and traced to the defendants' business account.

CIBC had reimbursed its client and was proceeding by way of subrogation.

The court granted default judgment, finding that the defendants were deemed to admit the facts due to their default, including that they were not bona fide purchasers for value without notice.

The court affirmed that the recipients of stolen funds hold them in constructive trust for the rightful owner and that tracing such funds is a matter of right.

The issue of costs was deferred pending the plaintiff's submission of a costs outline.

The applicant, Elijah Hall, pleaded guilty to three counts of selling fentanyl and cocaine.

He sought a stay of these charges based on entrapment, arguing that the initial drug transaction was initiated by an undercover police officer without reasonable suspicion.

The Crown conceded the lack of reasonable suspicion for the first transaction but argued that this did not taint subsequent transactions.

The court, applying the principles of entrapment, found that the lack of reasonable suspicion at the outset did taint the subsequent transactions, distinguishing the case from R. v. Williams where firearm charges were not stayed.

The court followed R. v. Gambin, concluding that the subsequent transactions were "fruit poisoned by the tree of the first transaction." The application for a stay was allowed, and the three counts were stayed.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion for a Norwich order to compel disclosure of information related to alleged defamation and intrusion upon seclusion, stemming from internet postings and domain name purchases.

The court found no urgency, questioned the validity of the intrusion upon seclusion claim regarding dormant domain names, and noted the defamation claim was weak as the articles had been removed.

The motion was deemed a potential tactical move related to ongoing commercial litigation between the parties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was not justified for a Norwich order and was akin to a fishing expedition.

This ruling addresses the plaintiffs' motion for leave to call more than three medical experts in a personal injury trial, as permitted under Section 12 of the Evidence Act.

The court reviewed the proposed experts for both plaintiffs, Kenisha Desmond and Shian Henry, and found significant overlap and duplication in their anticipated testimony, particularly among medical specialists.

Applying the criteria for granting leave and emphasizing the court's gatekeeping function to prevent unnecessary trial length and disproportionate costs, the judge granted leave to call only one expert from each identified group of duplicative specialists for both plaintiffs, while allowing economic and occupational therapy experts.

The plaintiff, Digital Business Systems Inc. (DBS), sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale following the settlement of its motion for injunctive relief against the defendants, Documents XMA Inc., Jean-Francois Roberge, and Cynthia Martin.

The motion concerned alleged breaches of a mutual non-solicitation agreement and misuse of confidential information after a former DBS employee joined XMA.

The court found DBS had a strong prima facie case, the defendants' pre-litigation conduct was egregious, and DBS achieved significant success on the substantive issues.

The court awarded DBS costs on a substantial indemnity scale, fixed at $28,395, payable forthwith.

The Monitor brought a motion for an extension of the stay period under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and authorization to make distributions from the Bremner Project Settlement Proceeds Reserve and the Niagara Project Settlement Proceeds Reserve.

The proposed distributions were to prioritize post-filing amounts, then proven priority claims (including lien claims under the Construction Lien Act), followed by repayment of certain outstanding amounts, and finally, any remaining balance for general unsecured creditors.

The motion was unopposed.

The court found the proposed distributions appropriate and the extension of the stay period reasonable, satisfying the good faith and due diligence requirements of the CCAA.

This decision outlines the reasons for sentencing Janis and Adem Corhamzic, who were found guilty of aggravated assault and assault.

The incident involved a brutal, hate-motivated attack on two victims, Mohammad Abu Marzouk and Fuat Yucel, in front of their families.

Mr. Abu Marzouk suffered severe traumatic brain injuries.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the anti-Arab hate motivation, the severe and lasting impact on the victims and their families, and the sustained violence, particularly the kicking of an unconscious victim.

Mitigating factors included the offenders' lack of prior criminal records, expressions of remorse, stable employment, and family support.

The court emphasized deterrence and denunciation for hate-motivated crimes while also applying the principle of restraint for first-time offenders.

This judgment addresses two consolidated applications: one by Elizabeth Dobis, Estate Trustee, seeking damages and costs from Mark Dobis for misappropriated estate funds, and another by Mark Dobis to pass accounts.

The court found that Mark Dobis had misappropriated funds and ordered him to pay $20,932.24 in damages to the Estate.

The court denied Mark Dobis's request for set-off against potential future claims for dependent's support or unjust enrichment, citing lack of equitable grounds and unliquidated claims.

Mark Dobis's accounts were passed, with the objection resolved by the damages award.

Elizabeth Dobis was also awarded costs totaling $17,100 for her application and $2,100 for a contempt motion that prompted Mark Dobis to comply with a prior order to pass accounts.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action due to the plaintiff's failure to pay ordered security for costs ($45,000) and costs ($8,400).

Despite being given extensions and opportunities, the plaintiff provided no evidence of payment or a plan to pay.

The court, balancing the importance of procedural compliance with access to justice, found no compelling reason to grant further indulgence and dismissed the action under Rule 56.06.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the defendants.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of prior discreditable conduct to establish the accused's identity and provide narrative context in a criminal trial for uttering threats, impeding justice, and criminal harassment.

The accused, Lance Crossley, was self-represented with amicus curiae assistance.

The court applied the general principle that prior misconduct evidence is inadmissible to prove propensity but recognized exceptions for identity, narrative, and similar fact evidence, requiring relevance and a probative value outweighing prejudicial effect.

The court admitted evidence from March 2018 to February 2020, finding it inextricably linked to the current charges and highly probative of identity, motive, and intent, subject to limiting instructions.

However, incidents from 2016 and January 2018 were deemed too remote and prejudicial, thus inadmissible.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend her Statement of Claim to particularize allegations of sexual assault and to plead similar fact evidence against a former pediatric doctor.

The court granted leave for the particularization of the assault but dismissed the motion to plead similar facts.

The dismissal was based on Section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, which prohibits the admissibility of records from disciplinary proceedings in civil actions, and the principle that pleadings should contain material facts, not evidence.

The court also addressed the plaintiff's use of initials and awarded costs to the defendants.