Superior Court of Justice

The court considered pre-trial applications by Althea Christopher and Tianna Smith to exclude evidence in a prosecution for unauthorized possession of a prohibited firearm while occupying a motor vehicle.

The applications were based on alleged breaches of Charter rights, including unreasonable search and seizure, and failures to comply with statutory reporting requirements.

The court found that the warrantless search of the vehicle's interior, which led to the discovery of a spent bullet casing, violated section 8 of the Charter.

The evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and the Crown subsequently withdrew the charges, ending the proceeding.

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.

The appellant, Amy Cox, appealed a finding of Not Criminally Responsible by reason of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) made by Justice Kinsella.

The appeal focused on alleged procedural unfairness in the NCRMD process and the sufficiency of the trial judge’s reasons.

The Superior Court found that, although there was evidence to support the NCRMD finding, the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons explaining why the evidence justified the verdict.

As a result, the appeal was allowed, the verdict set aside, and a new trial ordered.

This decision addresses several motions between the parties, including undertakings and refusals arising from cross-examinations, a request for Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) to produce certain files and employees as witnesses, and whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to file a supplementary affidavit in the context of a summary judgment motion.

The court discusses the privacy and production issues related to ESDC records, the discretion of the Minister under the Department of Employment and Social Development Act, and the test for granting leave to file supplementary affidavit material.

The court also rules on costs and sets out principles for undertakings and refusals.

Michael Miller was charged with operating a conveyance while impaired and possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

He pleaded guilty to impaired operation and admitted possession of fentanyl, but denied possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The trial focused on whether the Crown could prove the trafficking purpose beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found reasonable doubt as to the purpose of trafficking and convicted Miller of the lesser included offence of possession of fentanyl.

This decision resolves a long motion in a family law dispute between Morgan MacDougall-Milne and Leigh Alexander Smith.

The respondent father sought medical disclosure and a parenting assessment of the applicant mother, alleging she suffered from dementia.

The court found no evidence supporting the claim of dementia and declined to order medical disclosure or a section 30 assessment.

The court granted the applicant’s requests to dispense with the respondent’s consent for their daughter’s passport, travel to Las Vegas, and enrollment in French Immersion, and ordered the release of certain records based on prior undertakings.

Full indemnity costs were awarded to the applicant.

This decision addresses whether solicitor-client privilege was waived by implication in a real estate dispute involving overlapping claims against a realtor and a lawyer.

The court found that, due to the plaintiff’s virtually identical allegations in two related actions, fairness and consistency required a finding of implied waiver of privilege.

The motion to compel disclosure of the lawyer’s advice and file was granted.

The court dismissed Smitten Baby Products Inc.'s action against FirstOnSite Restoration Limited (FOS), holding that FOS, as an insurance investigator retained by the insurer, did not owe a duty of care to the insured, Smitten Baby.

The decision reviews the requirements for establishing a duty of care in cases of pure economic loss, finding that Smitten Baby failed to plead facts establishing a proximate relationship or reasonable reliance.

The court also found that the statement of claim did not adequately plead causation.

Even if a prima facie duty of care could be established, policy considerations would negate it.

The motion for partial summary judgment was dismissed as moot.

The Applicant sought an order barring the Crown from prosecuting him for an allegation of choking, arguing that the charge formed part of a prior resolution and that prosecution would amount to double jeopardy under sections 725(1) and 725(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown argued that the choking allegation was not part of the previous proceedings and could be prosecuted.

The court found that the choking allegation was not previously adjudicated or considered, and therefore, the Crown was not barred from proceeding.

The application was dismissed.

This decision addresses the division of property, equalization, and post-separation adjustments following the breakdown of marriage between Oludayo Olowookere and Arthur Temitope Olowookere.

The court determined the date of separation, assessed the credibility and sufficiency of evidence regarding alleged family loans, and calculated equalization and post-separation adjustments.

The court found insufficient evidence to support the existence of the claimed loans and provided detailed reasons for the equalization and adjustment calculations, ultimately ordering specific payments and dismissing the occupation rent claim.

This decision concerns the continuation of refusals motions in complex insurance litigation involving environmental claims at 26 mining sites operated by Vale Canada Limited.

The court addresses the proportionality and sufficiency of discovery efforts, the organization and resolution of thousands of discovery refusals, and sets out directions for further production and inquiry.

The ruling emphasizes the need for balance and proportionality in discovery, especially in large-scale litigation, and provides a framework for resolving outstanding discovery disputes ahead of trial.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a trial on parenting issues between Maryana Chyher and Amar Al Jaboury.

The court reviews the parties’ submissions, the relevant Family Law Rules, and the conduct of the parties throughout the litigation.

The court finds that the respondent, Mr. Al Jaboury, acted unreasonably and awards the applicant, Ms. Chyher, $60,000 in costs for the trial, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The court addresses the issue of "costs thrown away" following the plaintiff's successful motion to amend his Statement of Claim to add Human Rights Code claims.

The court reviews the appropriate scale for such costs, the timing of the assessment, and the quantum to be awarded.

Ultimately, the court fixes the amount of costs thrown away at $52,549, payable by the plaintiff to the defendants, and provides detailed reasons for the calculation and allocation of these costs.

The appellant, Laurel Paige, appealed convictions for sexual interference, sexual assault, and committing an indecent act, arguing that the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the complainant, a child witness.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice reviewed the trial judge’s reasons, finding that while there was a palpable error in treating the complainant’s admission of prior false allegations as bolstering her credibility, the error was not overriding and did not affect the outcome.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court emphasizing the deference owed to trial judges on credibility findings and clarifying the proper approach to issues of corroboration, inconsistencies, and motive to fabricate.

The court considered motions for costs personally against George Windsor, who commenced proceedings on behalf of Gilles Jozias Overtveld and Gi-Las Management and Maintenance Ltd. without proper authority.

The action was found to be duplicative, meritless, and a waste of resources.

The court fixed costs on a substantial indemnity basis against Mr. Windsor personally, disallowed him from charging legal fees to the plaintiffs, and set out the principles for awarding costs in such circumstances.

The decision concerns the bail application of Matias Domingo Sanchez Nanuclef, who faces extradition to the United States for his alleged involvement in a $15 million jewellery store burglary in San Diego.

The court reviews the factual background, the legal onus for bail in extradition cases, and the proposed plan of release.

The application is denied on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, with the court finding that the applicant is not ordinarily resident in Canada, poses a flight risk, and that detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The appellant appealed convictions for mischief and obstructing police arising from his presence in a restricted area on Wellington Street during the Freedom Convoy occupation of Ottawa on February 19, 2022.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding police had common law authority to secure the area, that his arrest violated s. 9 of the Charter, that the search incident to arrest breached s. 8 of the Charter, and that the evidence should have been excluded.

The appeal court found the trial judge correctly applied the ancillary powers doctrine and properly assessed the officer's reasonable grounds for arrest.

The appeal was dismissed on all grounds.

The decision addresses a motion to amend the Statement of Claim in a civil action brought by Gurupdesh Pandher against the University of Windsor and several individuals.

The court considers whether the plaintiff may add Human Rights Code claims from prior HRTO applications, the addition of new defendants, the sufficiency of defamation pleadings, the scope of misfeasance in public office, the introduction of new human rights grounds, the effect of the collective agreement and labour arbitration, the use of documents subject to the deemed or implied undertaking rule, and the pleading of matters subject to settlement privilege.

The court grants some amendments, strikes others, and provides detailed directions for further pleadings.

The court sentenced Emmanuel Kitenge, who pled guilty to manslaughter and failing to stop for police, for his role as a getaway driver in a fatal shooting.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offence, the impact on the victim’s family, the offender’s background, and the applicable sentencing principles.

After considering aggravating and mitigating factors, including Kitenge’s youth, lack of criminal record, difficult upbringing, and significant rehabilitative efforts, the court imposed a sentence of 6.5 years less one day for manslaughter (with credit for pre-sentence custody), a concurrent nine-month sentence for failing to stop for police, probation, and ancillary orders.