Superior Court of Justice

In a family trial concerning ongoing child support, s. 7 expenses, alleged arrears, and security for support, the court rejected the payor parent's claim that his earning capacity had fallen to minimum wage after business and personal bankruptcy.

Applying the imputed income framework under s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court found the payor intentionally underemployed, relied on his sworn financial statement, and imputed income of $77,000.

The court apportioned s. 7 expenses 70/30, credited prior extra direct payments against claimed arrears, and ordered the payor to obtain life insurance securing support, subject to proof of uninsurability or prohibitive cost.

Costs were awarded to the successful party, with quantum to be addressed if not resolved.

On a long motion in a family law proceeding, the respondent wife sought a substantial interim disbursement to fund valuation, forensic document review, and future litigation steps in a dispute involving alleged improper sale of a matrimonial home, disputed intrafamily loans, equalization, and support.

The court held that the threshold merit standard on an interim disbursement motion is not onerous and found sufficient merit in the wife's claims concerning the separation date, the characterization of the property transaction, the legitimacy or discounting of alleged debts to the paternal grandparents, and the need to test the husband's business valuation and income evidence.

The court further found that the wife lacked the means to pursue the litigation, that the playing field was not level, and that the husband had or could access resources to pay.

The requested amount was reduced for proportionality, and an interim disbursement of $137,500.00 was ordered within 30 days.

The court-appointed Receiver and an equipment lessor brought motions seeking declarations that the respondent, Hub Truck Centre, did not have valid repair and storage liens over certain trucks formerly operated by the debtor.

Hub had refused to surrender the vehicles, claiming over $2 million in liens.

The court found that Hub failed to prove it was a 'repairer' or 'storer' under the Repair and Storage Liens Act, as there was no evidence of an understanding that it would be paid.

Furthermore, Hub lost any potential possessory liens because the vehicles constantly moved in and out of its yard, and it failed to obtain signed acknowledgments of indebtedness to perfect non-possessory liens.

The motions were granted, the liens were declared invalid, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded against Hub.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the defendant moved to strike the case from the January 2027 trial list based on the plaintiff's alleged non-compliance with document production obligations relating to mitigation.

The court found the self-represented plaintiff had incompletely complied and had misunderstood the scope of the prior production order, but rejected the defendant's characterization of the record as showing no meaningful compliance.

The motion to strike was dismissed as overzealous and disproportionate at that stage.

The court instead granted the plaintiff one final opportunity to provide specified personal banking, corporate, share purchase, lease, and job-search records, required that the productions be sworn, and permitted a further six-hour examination.

Costs were reserved to the trial judge.

A long-haul truck driver brought claims for wrongful dismissal and unpaid overtime after his employment was terminated for cause following a second failed random drug test for cannabis.

The court held that the employer's drug and alcohol policy for safety-sensitive drivers was reasonable, clearly communicated, consistently enforced, and proportionately applied, and that no duty to accommodate arose because the evidence did not establish an actual or perceived drug dependency disability.

The court further held that any overtime claim older than two years before the issuance of the claim was barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, and that the remaining overtime claim failed for lack of reliable proof.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.

The plaintiffs sought up to $50 million for alleged negligent misrepresentations made by Ministry officials during the regulatory review of a proposed wind energy project requiring a Renewable Energy Approval.

The court held that the Ministry representatives owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs given their sustained, proponent-facing interactions and knowledge of the economic consequences tied to the feed-in-tariff deadline.

However, the court found that none of the four alleged misrepresentations was actionable: some statements were attributable only to government press releases or regulatory materials, while others were factually and legally correct, including statements about the six-month service standard, merits-based review, and the absence of any Indigenous veto.

The court also rejected preliminary defences based on pleading sufficiency, issue estoppel, abuse of process, and a prior release.

The action was dismissed.

On a family-law contempt motion concerning repeated failures to facilitate parenting time and reunification therapy, the court found that the respondent had breached three parenting-related orders.

It held that contempt could not be grounded on two superseded orders because contempt is an enforcement remedy available only for a live operative order.

As to the current order, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the order was clear, the respondent knew of it, and her failure to ensure the children's attendance was intentional, but declined to enter a contempt finding because contempt in family cases is a remedy of last resort and an enforcement motion had not yet been pursued.

The court instead directed an enforcement motion, declined police enforcement, and imposed interim compliance-related orders including a $250 payment for each missed parenting-time or therapy date.

The plaintiff commenced a civil action against his former spouse and adult daughter, claiming damages for malicious prosecution, defamation, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and intentional interference with economic relations.

The claims arose from the daughter's disclosure of sexual abuse, which led to criminal charges against the plaintiff that ultimately resulted in an acquittal.

The court directed a hearing under Rule 2.1.01 to determine if the claim was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court struck the claim in its entirety without leave to amend, finding that the malicious prosecution claim failed because the police, not the defendants, initiated the prosecution, and the defamation and other claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court also found the action to be an abusive collateral attack on the family law proceedings and an attempt to weaponize the legal system against the defendants.

The offender pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm after stabbing a man during an altercation on a TTC streetcar.

The offender, who was subject to a peace bond prohibiting weapons, acted in self-defence but used excessive force.

The court considered the offender's 11 months of pre-sentence custody, his lack of a prior criminal record, and his career plans.

Finding that a discharge would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, the court granted a conditional discharge with 36 months of probation.

This was a costs decision following a jury verdict in an insurance coverage dispute arising from a commercial fire loss.

The plaintiff recovered the balance of an endorsement after the insurer denied liability despite an alleged promise to pay if a code-compliant structure was rebuilt.

The court held that full indemnity costs were not justified on the misconduct record, but gave elevated weight to indemnity, the insurer's serious misconduct, and a reasonable withdrawn offer to settle under Rule 49.13.

Costs were fixed at $200,000 plus HST and $50,000 in disbursements, and prejudgment interest was awarded at an averaged 2.15% rate over the ten-year period.

In a Simplified Procedure motor vehicle action, the defendants sought direction at a case conference permitting them to summons an unresponsive non-party witness to give viva voce evidence at trial if an affidavit could not be obtained.

The court held that an associate judge's jurisdiction is strictly statutory and that rule 76 repeatedly requires evidence in chief to proceed by affidavit in a summary trial.

The general power in subrule 76.10(5)(e) to make orders respecting the conduct of the proceeding could not be used to override that structure.

The request was therefore refused, although the court observed that a judge, exercising inherent jurisdiction, might be able to entertain the same relief if brought promptly before trial.

The applicant developer sought oppression relief under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998 to compel a condominium corporation to sign a resort access licence agreement for shared amenities in a resort-style development.

The court held that the applicant was a successor declarant with standing and that the condominium corporation remained obliged under its declaration to enter into a licence agreement, notwithstanding its attempted declaration amendment and arguments based on s. 112.

However, the court found that the refusal to sign the specific agreement tendered was not oppressive because the proposed terms left fees, rules, closures, and future charges substantially within the developer's unilateral control.

The proper course, if terms cannot be agreed, is mediation and arbitration under s. 132.

The application was dismissed.

The debtor applicants sought court approval for a pre-packaged sale ('quick flip') of their assets to a new company owned by existing management, pursuant to section 36 of the CCAA.

The proposed transaction was supported by the senior secured creditor but opposed by a subordinate secured creditor, BDC Capital Inc., who was excluded from the sales process and given minimal notice.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the debtor failed to meet its burden under sections 36(3) and 36(4) of the CCAA.

The court held that the sales process lacked transparency, failed to make good faith efforts to sell to unrelated parties after the senior debt was purchased at a discount, and did not demonstrate that the proposed consideration was superior to other potential offers.

The respondent mother brought a Motion to Change seeking retroactive and ongoing child support, alleging the applicant father fraudulently misrepresented his income for over a decade.

The father failed to file an Answer, and the matter proceeded as an uncontested trial.

The court found the father had hidden significant employment and rental income, imputing his 2025 income at $166,897.

The court ordered retroactive child support to January 1, 2015, and fixed ongoing support.

The mother's claims for damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and a novel tort of 'child support fraud' were dismissed, as child support is the right of the child and the harm could be remedied through retroactive support and costs.

The father was ordered to pay full recovery costs of $61,399.12 due to his bad faith conduct, and the court granted a lien against his properties to secure the amounts owed.

The Applicant brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant at a multi-unit dwelling.

The court found the search warrant invalid because police failed to disclose obvious indicia that the residence contained multiple units, rendering the warrant overbroad.

The subsequent search, detention, and arrest were therefore illegal, violating ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Furthermore, police violated the Applicant's s. 10(b) rights by delaying access to counsel for two hours without justification and eliciting inculpatory actions (opening a safe) before he could consult a lawyer.

Applying the Grant test, the court concluded the serious and cumulative Charter breaches warranted the exclusion of the seized drugs and the Applicant's statements under s. 24(2).

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including aggravated assault, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, sexual assault, and uttering threats, arising from an incident where the complainant was held in an apartment for several hours.

The accused admitted to pouring boiling water on the complainant, constituting aggravated assault, but denied the other charges.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence as implausible and internally inconsistent.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable regarding the confinement, beatings, head shaving, burning with a lighter, and threats, but found her evidence regarding the sexual assault too inconsistent to support a conviction.

The accused was found guilty of all charges except sexual assault.

Following a decision dividing the equity in a property between the applicant son and respondent mother, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought $15,000 based on the respondent's repeated failures to comply with deadlines, which necessitated eleven court appearances.

The respondent argued for no costs given the divided result on the merits and her deteriorating health.

The court awarded the applicant $10,000 in costs, finding that the respondent's conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding.

The parties separated after a high-conflict marriage marked by the applicant's alcohol abuse and incidents of domestic violence.

The applicant sought a 2/2/3 parenting schedule and split decision-making responsibility, relying on an OCL report.

The respondent challenged the OCL report, seeking final decision-making on all issues and a schedule with less parenting time for the applicant, citing ongoing concerns about alcohol and safety.

The court found the applicant had made significant progress in addressing his alcohol issues and that the respondent had a tendency to make unilateral decisions and minimize the applicant's role.

The court adopted the OCL's recommendations, ordering a 2/2/3 parenting schedule and splitting decision-making responsibility, with the applicant having final say over education and counselling, and the respondent over health and recreation.

The plaintiff law firm brought a motion for summary judgment for over $1 million in unpaid legal fees against the corporate defendants and the individual defendant as guarantor.

The defendants sought to dismiss the motion and have the accounts referred for assessment under the Solicitors Act or the court's inherent jurisdiction, citing special circumstances.

The court found that the law firm failed to advise the clients of their right to assess the accounts and failed to render accounts every 60 days as agreed.

The court concluded that special circumstances existed, dismissed the summary judgment motion, and ordered the accounts to be referred for assessment.

The defendant requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The statement of claim consisted of only two lines alleging harassment, racism, hate crime, and defamatory libel, claiming $1 million, but lacked any material facts or particulars.

The plaintiff failed to provide submissions when notified of the court's concerns.

The court found the action to be clearly frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and dismissed it without costs.