Superior Court of Justice

The offender was convicted of sexual interference against his daughter, who was between the ages of 4 and 13 during the offences.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the offender's position of trust, the duration of the abuse, and the profound harm caused to the victim, against mitigating factors such as harsh pre-sentence custody conditions and family support.

Applying the principles from Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, sentencing the offender to 7.5 years in custody, reduced to 6 years and 2.5 months after credit for pre-sentence custody.

A 20-year prohibition order under s. 161 of the Criminal Code was also imposed.

In an application to prove a lost will, the applicant and respondents brought competing motions.

The respondents sought a Mareva injunction, Norwich orders, an accounting, and to compel cross-examinations of the applicant and a non-party witness.

The applicant moved to set aside certificates of non-attendance and prohibit further motions.

The court set aside the certificates of non-attendance, finding the respondents failed to exercise reasonable diligence in scheduling the cross-examinations.

The court dismissed the respondents' requests for a Mareva injunction and Norwich orders, finding no evidence of a real risk of asset dissipation or wrongdoing, though it granted limited documentary discovery from a non-party law firm.

Costs of $40,000 were awarded to the applicant.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The defendant failed to close on the agreed date and argued the signed agreement was not binding because a clause requiring mutual consent to advance the closing date had not been initialed.

The court applied an objective test and found the signed agreement was valid and binding, noting the defendant had twice signed amendments confirming the existing terms.

Summary judgment was granted in the amount of $76,965.12, representing the difference between the contract price and resale price plus carrying costs, less the deposit which was credited against damages per the Court of Appeal's analysis in Azzarello.

The claim for lost Airbnb income was denied.

The applicants sought compliance with several court orders requiring the respondent bank to produce disclosure, including bank statements in native format and compliance reports.

Following two case conferences, the court found that the respondent had failed to make adequate efforts to comply and offered shifting, implausible explanations for the missing documents.

The court directed the parties to schedule a contempt motion and awarded the applicants their costs of the case conferences in the amount of $11,375.15, noting the respondent's ongoing disregard for court orders.

The applicant hotel owner sought damages and declaratory relief against the Ministry of Transportation for business losses caused by ferry project delays.

The Ministry moved to strike the application for failure to provide the mandatory 60-day notice under s. 18(1) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.

The court struck the claims for damages but allowed the claims for declaratory relief regarding the interpretation of the parties' agreements to proceed.

The court also converted the surviving application into an action due to material facts in dispute and the need for factual matrix evidence, and adjourned the matter.

The respondent wife brought a motion for interim disbursements under r. 24(25) of the Family Law Rules to fund legal representation for a long motion and trial in a complex family law proceeding involving division of net family property and spousal support.

The parties had a decades-long marriage with business interests spanning Canada and Taiwan, and the case was complicated by the misappropriation of approximately $5.5 million in Taiwan land sale proceeds by an adult child.

The court granted $25,000 for the long motion, finding the respondent had demonstrated the disbursements were necessary and reasonable, that she was unable to fund the fees herself, and that her claims were meritorious.

The request for $220,000 for trial fees was dismissed without prejudice as the trial scope depended on the outcome of the long motion.

The plaintiff insurance brokerage sought an interlocutory injunction to prohibit a former employee from accepting business from its clients.

The defendant admitted to forwarding confidential client information to her personal email before resigning to join a competitor.

While the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the breach of employment obligations, it concluded the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm, as existing court orders already restrained the misuse of confidential information and any potential loss of revenue could be quantified in damages.

The balance of convenience also favoured the defendant.

The motion for further injunctive relief was dismissed.

The applicant wife brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement reached during a closed family mediation.

The respondent husband opposed, arguing no final agreement was reached and that the mediator's report was protected by settlement privilege.

The court found that the exception to settlement privilege applied to prove the existence of the agreement.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue for trial, as the evidence, including representations made by the husband's former counsel to the court, demonstrated a clear meeting of the minds on the essential terms.

The motion was granted, and the husband was ordered to pay the agreed equalization amount plus costs.

Terry Roberts brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss Michael Cowie's motion and application for directions regarding a will challenge, arguing they were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that a will challenge is not a 'claim' for the purposes of the Act, as probate proceedings are in rem and do not seek to remedy an injury, loss, or damage caused by an act or omission.

The court also found that a notice of objection and a motion for directions are not 'proceedings' under the Act.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim or dismiss the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff had previously consented to a judgment for possession following a mortgage default, and his subsequent attempts to set aside the judgment and appeal were dismissed.

The court found that the current action sought to relitigate the same issues already finally adjudicated in the prior mortgage enforcement proceedings.

The motion was granted, the action was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants for the shortfall on a loan secured by a second mortgage and a personal guarantee.

The court granted judgment for the outstanding principal, NSF fees, and accrued interest, finding the defendants breached the loan agreement and guarantee.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for $150,000 in lost opportunity costs related to a planned condominium purchase, holding that expectation damages are limited to the repayment of the loan and contractual interest.

The accused was arrested at gunpoint while walking with a known suspect who was believed to be armed.

The arresting officers lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused, rendering the subsequent search incident to arrest unlawful and in violation of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Furthermore, the police violated the accused's s. 10(b) rights by conducting a strip search at the station without first providing him an opportunity to consult with counsel.

Applying the Grant framework, the court found the police conduct demonstrated a disturbing ignorance of Charter standards, and the cumulative effect of the breaches warranted the exclusion of the seized drugs and cash under s. 24(2).

The Crown applied to hold joint forfeiture hearings in multiple related prosecutions involving over 1,000 allegedly forged artworks seized from third parties.

The third parties and proposed intervenors either took no position or did not oppose the application.

The court granted the application, finding that a joint hearing involving common third parties, evidence, and legal issues would be the most efficient process and ensure a consistent application of the law.

The applicant father brought a motion for summary judgment to set aside a separation agreement signed in 2019, arguing fraudulent misrepresentation, lack of consensus, and that the agreement was a sham.

Under the agreement, the applicant transferred his interest in the matrimonial home to the respondent.

The court found no evidence to support the applicant's claims and held that the agreement was valid and enforceable.

The motion to set aside the separation agreement was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action for delay under the Langenecker test.

The action had been outstanding for eleven years but was a relatively straightforward wrongful dismissal claim for a one-year employee.

The court found the delay was inordinate but not inexcusable, as the plaintiff had adequately explained the turnover of counsel and procedural complications.

Even assuming the delay was inexcusable, the court found no prejudice to the defendants' ability to have a fair trial, as discovery transcripts preserved evidence and previous findings on the amendment motion had already rejected prejudice claims.

The defendants' motion was dismissed and the plaintiff's cross-motion to restore the action to the trial list was granted with a peremptory timetable imposed.

The plaintiff's motion to set aside a settlement agreement based on unproven allegations of fraud and misrepresentation was dismissed.

The defendants sought costs of $49,146.53 on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the plaintiff's conduct was egregious.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, argued no costs should be awarded.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiff's conduct did not reach the level of reprehensibility required, but awarded the defendants costs of $24,000 on a partial indemnity basis, noting the hours claimed by the defendants were excessive.

The moving party brought a motion seeking to compel the responding party to answer discovery questions and produce income tax and bank records, alleging that newly discovered evidence of dividend payments undermined a prior decision sustaining discovery refusals.

The court dismissed the motion on the basis of issue estoppel, finding that the moving party's abandonment of its earlier appeal rendered the prior associate justice's decision final.

The court held that the new evidence of co-defendant dividend payments did not demonstrate that the responding party had received income from co-defendants or had misrepresented facts at discovery.

Costs submissions were reserved.

The offender was convicted by a jury of human trafficking, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, trafficking heroin, and related offences.

The offender exploited a vulnerable young woman struggling with heroin addiction by supplying her with drugs and forcing her into sex work.

The court weighed significant aggravating factors, including the use of heroin and threats to control the victim, against mitigating factors such as the offender's youth, lack of prior record, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

A global sentence of 7 years was imposed, resulting in a net sentence of 4 years and 240 days after pre-sentence custody credits.

The appellant, self-represented, appealed an order of a justice of the Ontario Court of Justice to the Divisional Court.

The court issued a Rule 2.1 notice and invited submissions as to why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant requested a transfer to the Superior Court rather than addressing jurisdiction.

The respondent agreed the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction but opposed the transfer, arguing the appellant should recommence proceedings in the proper forum.

The court dismissed the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, finding the Divisional Court was clearly without jurisdiction, and declined to transfer the proceedings.

The defendant was convicted of sexual assault and assault against his intimate partner.

The offences involved forced penetrative intercourse without a condom after consent was withdrawn, followed by the defendant physically forcing the complainant to take an emergency contraceptive pill.

The court weighed significant aggravating factors, including the defendant's prior record for intimate partner violence and the profound impact on the complainant, against mitigating factors such as family support and systemic anti-Black racism.

The court sentenced the defendant to 4.5 years for sexual assault and 9 months concurrent for assault, less 329 days of pre-sentence credit.