Superior Court of Justice

The Receiver brought a contempt motion against the respondent for breaching an appointment order by interfering with the Receiver's exclusive authority and supporting a criminal complaint against the Receiver's representatives in Panama.

Having previously found the respondent in civil contempt, the court determined the appropriate penalty.

Finding that the respondent's conduct was a blatant and deliberate breach that undermined the court's authority, and that a fine would be insufficient for deterrence, the court ordered the respondent to be imprisoned for 30 days.

Following a successful motion regarding a parenting schedule and school enrollment, the applicant sought full recovery costs of $21,425.93.

The respondent opposed, citing limited ability to pay and arguing the costs were excessive.

The court found the applicant was substantially successful and behaved reasonably, while the respondent's position was unreasonable.

Applying the principles of proportionality and reasonableness under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant $14,000 in costs, payable in monthly installments of $400.

The self-represented appellant, an OPCA litigant, was convicted of failing to appear in court.

During his trial, the judge excluded him from the courtroom twice due to his obstructionist and pseudo-legal behaviour, invoking s. 650(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.

After the Crown closed its case, the trial judge immediately proceeded to find the appellant guilty without offering him the opportunity to make full answer and defence under s. 650(3).

On appeal, the Superior Court found that while the exclusion was justified, the failure to offer the appellant the opportunity to present a defence constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.

The defendant, Bayer Inc., brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim in a product liability action concerning an allegedly defective contraceptive device.

The court found that the claim consisted of bare allegations and conclusory statements without pleading the necessary material facts to support a cause of action in negligence.

The motion was granted, and the statement of claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend, as the court was not persuaded that the foundational deficiencies could be cured.

The Crown applied for an order remanding the offender for an assessment for a dangerous or long-term offender application following his conviction for aggravated assault against a fellow inmate.

The court reviewed the offender's criminal record, including youth convictions, intimate partner violence, and a manslaughter conviction.

The court found that the threshold for ordering an assessment, while low, was not met, as the offender's past behaviour did not provide reasonable grounds to believe he might be found to be a dangerous or long-term offender.

The application was dismissed.

Following an interim motion where the responding party was entirely successful, the parties submitted written arguments on costs.

The moving party argued against a costs award, citing her limited financial means and the responding party's alleged unreasonable conduct.

The court rejected the moving party's arguments, noting that financial hardship does not shield an unsuccessful party from costs liability.

The court awarded the responding party partial indemnity costs fixed at $2,800.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking equal shared parenting and a corresponding reduction in child support under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The respondent mother opposed, seeking to maintain the status quo of her primary care.

The court applied the newly amended Divorce Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Barendregt, noting the 'maximum contact principle' has been replaced by the 'parenting time factor' which is strictly subject to the child's best interests.

Finding the father's request was partly financially motivated and that the status quo favoured the mother, the court ordered the children to remain in the mother's primary care.

The father was ordered to pay full table child support and arrears.

The two accused were found guilty by a jury of human trafficking, procuring, and advertising sexual services.

Augustin was also found guilty of receiving a material benefit from human trafficking and procuring.

The accused exercised significant control over the complainant, forcing her to provide sexual services to numerous men in inhumane conditions and taking all her earnings.

The court sentenced Augustin to 8 years imprisonment (less 11 months credit) and St. Armand to 5 years imprisonment (less 6 months credit), noting the severe impact on the victim and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The applicant challenged his mother's Will, which disinherited him, arguing she lacked testamentary capacity, suffered from insane delusions, and was unduly influenced by his brother.

The court found that while the Will was executed under suspicious circumstances, the respondents successfully proved the testator had testamentary capacity and was not operating under insane delusions.

The court held that the testator's reasons for disinheriting the applicant, though perhaps unreasonable or based on misunderstandings, were grounded in actual events and did not amount to insane delusions.

The applicant also failed to prove undue influence.

The application and related action were dismissed.

The midwife and physician defendants moved to vary a previous order requiring the plaintiffs to undergo independent medical examinations involving genetic testing.

The variation sought to change the designated laboratory from GeneDX to Blueprint Genetics and extend the deadline, as GeneDX no longer performed testing for legal cases.

The plaintiffs agreed to the change but requested a condition that the laboratory's reports comply with Rules 33.06 and 53.03(2.1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the motion to vary the laboratory and deadline, but declined to impose the requested condition, finding that the rules apply to examining health practitioners and experts intended to be called at trial, not to the laboratory conducting the tests.

The condominium corporation brought a motion to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the plaintiffs' claims against it, which had previously been stayed in favour of arbitration.

The plaintiffs opposed the appointment, arguing they had not commenced an arbitration and could not be forced to act as plaintiffs.

The court granted the motion and appointed an arbitrator, noting that the condominium corporation was entitled to push forward with the claims made against it to clear its name, and that the arbitrator would determine the process.

During a trial of an issue on damages arising from an application, the applicant objected to numerous pieces of viva voce evidence introduced by the respondents.

The court had previously directed that the damages trial proceed on the closed record as it existed when the application was initially argued.

The court applied a bright-line test, ruling that any evidence not actually found in the underlying application record was inadmissible to prevent trial by ambush.

The court sustained the majority of the applicant's objections, rejecting the respondents' arguments that the new evidence was merely a permissible amplification of the existing record or a necessary response to the applicant's expert.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a $9,750,000 settlement in a medical malpractice action arising from severe birth injuries sustained by the minor plaintiff.

The court reviewed the proposed distribution, including damages, costs, and legal fees calculated under a Contingent Fee Agreement.

Finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the minor plaintiff, and the reduced contingency fee of 27.5% appropriate, the court approved the settlement and the related guardianship application.

The moving parties, the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS), brought a motion for an interim injunction to prohibit the responding party, the Carleton University Students' Association (CUSA), from proceeding with a referendum regarding disassociation from CFS.

CFS argued the referendum violated its bylaws, which dictate a specific process and timeline for such votes.

CUSA contended the referendum was merely consultative and non-binding.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a genuine issue to be adjudicated and that proceeding with the referendum would cause irreparable harm by subverting the regular process to which all members are bound.

The court granted the mandatory order prohibiting the referendum.

The appellant, a religious teacher, appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference against a 10-year-old student.

He argued the trial judge erred by failing to address inconsistencies and implausibilities in the complainant's evidence, improperly using a prior consistent statement to bolster credibility, and conflating the absence of a motive to fabricate with positive proof of no motive.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge adequately addressed the evidence, properly used the prior consistent statement as circumstantial evidence, and correctly addressed the motive to fabricate in response to the defence's cross-examination.

The plaintiff sued the defendant municipality for injuries sustained after tripping on beach stones scattered on a public sidewalk.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the sidewalk was not in an unreasonable state of non-repair and that it had no knowledge of the stones.

The court granted the defendant's motion, finding that the presence of the stones did not constitute an unreasonable state of non-repair as they could be easily avoided by a person exercising ordinary care.

Furthermore, the court held that the municipality was exempt from liability under s. 44(3)(a) of the Municipal Act because it did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, about the stones on the sidewalk.

In the context of Laurentian University's CCAA proceedings, the moving party brought a motion seeking an order to direct the Monitor to engage in mediation regarding its appeal of a Claims Officer's decision.

The Claims Officer had upheld the Monitor's disallowance of the moving party's $9.8 million claim for loss of commercial value.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the existing claims process provided an adequate mechanism for resolving the dispute through the pending appeal.

The court also noted that the request for mediation was made too late, as it was brought only after the Claims Officer had already determined the matter on its merits.

The accused was tried for possession and importation of child pornography after border security officers found numerous digital devices in his luggage at Pearson Airport.

The central issue was whether the accused had knowledge of the child pornography on the devices.

The court rejected demeanour evidence but found that the volume and dispersal of the illicit material across seven different devices constituted overwhelming circumstantial evidence of knowledge.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

Sentencing decision following convictions for uttering threats, sexual assault, and incest arising from non-consensual sexual acts committed by the offender against his adult daughter while she was living temporarily in his apartment and was in a position of vulnerability.

Applying the sentencing objectives in ss. 718, 718.1, and 718.2 of the Criminal Code, the court held that denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the abuse of parental trust, repeated sexual violence, and the profound victim impact.

The court found that the numerous aggravating factors overwhelmingly supported a penitentiary sentence and rejected the defence submission for a lower-end sentence.

A global five-year concurrent sentence was imposed on the incest and sexual assault counts, with a concurrent six-month term for uttering threats, together with mandatory ancillary orders.

The moving party, Rogers Communications Canada Inc., sought to set aside previous orders dismissing its motion for security for costs against the responding party, Active Security and Cable Inc., on the basis of fraud or newly discovered facts under Rule 59.06(2)(a).

Rogers alleged that an erroneous payment of over $876,000 and other newly discovered facts regarding Active Security's financial status warranted setting aside the orders.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the new evidence would not have likely altered the original decision, which relied primarily on a large CRA debt.

Furthermore, Rogers failed to prove fraudulent concealment and had made a tactical decision not to raise the new evidence during the appeal process.