Superior Court of Justice

The applicant, a common shareholder in a family-owned real estate holding corporation, brought an application seeking dissent rights regarding the sale of corporate assets, an oppression remedy, and the appointment of a liquidator.

The court found that the applicant's dissent rights under the Business Corporations Act had been validly waived by a Unanimous Shareholders Agreement that granted the mother sole discretion to sell assets.

The oppression claim was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish a reasonable expectation of participation or any unfair prejudice.

However, the court ordered the appointment of an independent liquidator to wind up the corporation, finding that the current directors lacked the necessary expertise to manage the complex tax and legal implications of the liquidation.

The applicants sought to set aside an arbitral award under s. 46(1)(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, arguing the arbitrator treated them unfairly by refusing to allow an amendment to their statement of defence to plead negligent misrepresentation shortly before the peremptory hearing.

The respondent cross-applied to enforce the award.

The court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator acted within his authority and did not treat the applicants unfairly, as the late amendment would have required further discovery and evidence.

The respondent's cross-application to enforce the award was granted.

The self-represented applicant brought two applications seeking to challenge prior judicial decisions and seeking the recusal of a Regional Senior Justice in an underlying civil action.

The respondents moved to strike the applications.

The applicant sought a last-minute adjournment citing illness, which the court denied due to a lack of cogent medical evidence and a history of delay.

The court granted the respondents' motions, dismissing the applications as impermissible collateral attacks and an abuse of process.

The court also found the claims against the Attorney General and the Regional Senior Justice disclosed no reasonable cause of action due to judicial independence and absolute judicial immunity.

The plaintiffs brought a post-trial motion to compel the defendants to cooperate in executing the sale and property management issues directed in a previous judgment, which found the plaintiffs to be 50% beneficial owners of the subject property.

At the hearing, the parties agreed on the form of the formal judgment and the mechanics for listing the property, managing it in the interim, and handling rental income.

The court ordered the defendants to cooperate with the plaintiffs in selling the property and to pay rents into court or trust, less agreed-upon expenses, with an order going as submitted by mutual agreement.

The plaintiff brought a motion for directions on late production and admissibility of a project bid estimate that it had previously refused to produce during discovery.

The plaintiff argued the document was irrelevant until its expert relied on it for a loss of productivity claim.

The court found the document was always relevant and required leave under Rule 53.08 to be admitted.

The court granted leave, finding no non-compensable prejudice or undue delay, but ordered the plaintiff to produce the native file and submit to further examination at its own expense on a full indemnity basis.

The accused was convicted of defrauding Canada Post Corporation but died prior to sentencing.

The Crown produced a Proof of Death Certification.

The court held that the death of the accused before the end of a criminal trial abates the trial, as the need to punish the accused and protect the public becomes academic.

The proceedings were abated.

Following the release of reasons dismissing the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence, the self-represented defendant communicated with the court to claim the motion had been withdrawn during submissions.

The court issued supplementary reasons clarifying that the motion was not withdrawn, but rather the relief sought was amended.

The court also noted that the defendant's indirect communication with the court breached Rule 1.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

During a criminal proceeding, the defendants applied to exclude recordings of intercepted conversations.

The Crown sought to admit sessions 381 and 842.

The court found that portions of session 381 were sufficiently audible and contextualized to be admitted, while prejudicial portions regarding personal drug use were excluded.

The court ruled that session 842 was inadmissible hearsay, as the statements had no evidentiary value unless admitted for the truth of their contents.

The accused, charged with drug trafficking and related offences, brought an application for further disclosure of materials related to the Information to Obtain (ITO) for a search warrant.

The accused sought these materials to challenge the grounds for his arrest outside the searched apartment.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the requested materials, including confidential informant notes and database searches, were clearly irrelevant to the grounds for arrest and amounted to a fishing expedition.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought a Rowbotham application seeking state-funded counsel after being denied Legal Aid.

The court found that the accused failed to establish the requisite degree of indigency, as he earned a decent wage and had the ability to save for legal fees.

Furthermore, the court determined that funded counsel was not essential to a fair trial, given the straightforward nature of the case and the fact that court-appointed counsel would conduct the cross-examination of the complainant and handle complex evidentiary motions.

The application was dismissed.

Following a motion to change spousal support where success was divided, the applicant sought costs on the basis of beating her December 2021 offer to settle.

The respondent argued for a no-costs order.

The court found the applicant was entitled to costs under Rule 18(14) but reduced the amount claimed for the period after the offer by 50% to reflect proportionality and the respondent's genuine settlement efforts.

The applicant was awarded total costs of $137,151.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce various terms of a domestic contract regarding child support, section 7 expenses, and a previous costs award.

The respondent cross-moved for related relief.

The court ordered the added party to pay the outstanding costs award of $25,800.

The court also directed the parties to calculate the cost of living adjustment for child support and ordered the respondent to pay fixed arrears for nanny, extracurricular, and therapy expenses.

Finally, the court ordered the parties to negotiate adequate life insurance security and exchange annual proof of RESP contributions.

The applicant sought a review of his detention order under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

He had an extensive criminal record and was facing serious drug and weapons charges, some of which were incurred while on release.

The applicant proposed a new surety and GPS monitoring as a change in circumstances.

The court found the proposed surety lacked sufficient knowledge and influence over the applicant, and the evidence regarding GPS monitoring was inadequate.

The application was dismissed on the secondary ground due to the high risk of reoffence.

The moving parties (respondents in the main application) brought a motion to strike out the responding party's application, arguing that the dispute over the interpretation of a business sale agreement should proceed by way of an action rather than an application.

The underlying dispute involved the location of a fourth sewage site to be developed under the contract.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the application framework under Rule 14.05(3)(d) was appropriate for contractual interpretation, even if some factual context was required, and that it was not plain and obvious that the application could not succeed.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff following a slip and fall on their property.

The court applied the five-factor test for setting aside a default judgment and found that the defendants failed to act promptly, offered no plausible explanation for their two-year delay, and lacked an arguable defence on the merits.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation claim.

The plaintiff, former Executive Director of the local Chamber of Commerce, sued the defendants after they wrote letters to various organizations criticizing her job performance and calling for her termination.

The court found that while the expressions related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff's claim had substantial merit and there were grounds to believe the defences of qualified privilege and fair comment would fail.

The court concluded that the harm suffered by the plaintiff outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions, which were vitriolic and motivated by personal animus.

The motion was dismissed.

In an uncontested family law trial following the applicant wife's bankruptcy, the court determined the equalization of net family properties.

The respondent husband claimed an equalization payment of over $3.5 million, while the wife's Trustee in Bankruptcy calculated the payment at $487,000.

The court resolved disputes over the valuation of the matrimonial home, corporate interests, bank accounts, and tax liabilities, ultimately ordering the wife to pay an equalization payment of $497,944.02.

The husband's claims for post-separation adjustments and spousal support were dismissed, the latter without prejudice due to insufficient evidence.

The plaintiff brought a motion to discontinue a proposed class action in Ontario regarding illnesses allegedly caused by the herbicide Gramoxone.

The plaintiff, a resident of British Columbia, preferred to proceed as a class member in a parallel action in British Columbia.

The defendants opposed the discontinuance, arguing it was a tactical move to avoid litigating in Ontario.

The court granted the discontinuance with prejudice, finding no prejudice to putative class members and noting that the defendants' concerns could be addressed through costs.

The court awarded the defendants costs of $71,807.32 on a partial indemnity scale.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking findings of contempt against the applicant father for alleged breaches of a final parenting order, including issues related to daycare drop-offs, summer camps, and extracurricular activities.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the alleged transgressions did not meet the strict threshold for civil contempt and that some had reasonable explanations or were minor.

The court noted that contempt should be a remedy of last resort and encouraged the parties to use mediation or a motion to change to resolve their disputes.

The applicant, charged with numerous human trafficking and sexual assault offences, brought an application alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay was approximately 48 to 50 months.

The court deducted periods of defence delay, including delay caused by the withdrawal of previous counsel and waiver of delay.

The court also deducted the entire two-year period of the COVID-19 pandemic as a discrete exceptional circumstance, noting the suspension of jury trials.

After deductions, the net delay fell well below the 30-month presumptive ceiling, and the court found the delay was not otherwise unreasonable.

The application was dismissed.