Superior Court of Justice

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 appellant appealed a conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample, arguing that police interrupted his consultation with duty counsel and thereby breached s. 10(b) of the Charter.

He submitted that the trial judge improperly relied on demeanour from a short video clip and failed to give adequate weight to his statement that he was 'not sure' when asked when the call had ended.

The appeal court held that the impugned findings were factual and credibility-based determinations entitled to deference absent palpable and overriding error.

Considering the totality of the evidence, including the video and the officer’s testimony, the court found no reviewable error and dismissed the appeal.

On a motion arising within a wrongful conviction action, the moving parties sought leave to file a responding record after cross-examining the defendant on his summary judgment affidavit.

The court applied the flexible Rule 39.02(2) test and held the proposed evidence was relevant to credibility and to the nature of the defendant's investigative role, responded to issues raised on cross-examination, and was not shown to cause non-compensable prejudice.

The court declined to finally determine admissibility at this stage, holding that issue should generally be left to the summary judgment judge.

Leave was granted with terms requiring advance particulars of the alleged contradictions and permitting a responding affidavit.

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 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.

The applicant sought to validate a collection of handwritten and will-kit documents as the deceased's later will, or alternatively to undo an earlier validation order and have the estate administered on an intestacy.

The court applied the s. 21.1 substantial-compliance framework under the Succession Law Reform Act and accepted authenticity, but found the incomplete documents did not establish fixed and final testamentary intentions.

The absence of key pages, executor designation, and residue clause, together with references to an existing "copy of will" and "original will," supported the inference that the materials were ancillary directions rather than a new will.

The court also rejected the alleged revocation of the previously validated 2004 will and held that ordinary civil costs rules applied.

Summary conviction appeal from a conviction entered after a guilty plea to operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg.

The appellant argued that the trial judge wrongly refused a day-of-trial adjournment to retain counsel and that the plea was uninformed because he did not understand the immigration consequences of conviction.

The court held that the trial judge properly exercised discretion in refusing the adjournment, given the age of the charges, the absence of diligence in retaining counsel, and the readiness of the witnesses and Crown to proceed.

The court further held that the appellant was sufficiently aware that a criminal conviction could carry serious immigration consequences, and in any event failed to establish credible subjective prejudice showing a reasonable possibility that he would have proceeded differently.

Following jury convictions for multiple firearms and drug trafficking offences, the court sentenced the offender for possessing three loaded prohibited handguns, overcapacity magazines, ammunition, and fentanyl, cocaine, and oxycodone.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for firearms and fentanyl trafficking offences, while also materially reducing moral culpability in light of the offender's anti-Black racism context, childhood instability, community violence exposure, and the IRCA evidence.

Applying concurrency within offence categories, consecutive treatment between firearms and drug categories, and the totality principle, the court reduced the global sentence from 14 years to 12 years.

After Summers credit for pre-trial custody and Duncan credit for harsh detention conditions, the remaining sentence was nine years and five months, together with lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA, and forfeiture orders.

The appellant sought extensive interim relief effectively staying both an interim family law order and further steps in related Ontario Court of Justice proceedings pending appeal.

The court accepted that the motion judge had erred in treating the commencement of a Superior Court application as creating an automatic stay under s. 36(1) of the Family Law Act, but held that the error did not justify relief because any stay still had to be affirmatively established.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald framework, the court found a serious issue in the narrow sense of legal error, but no irreparable harm from requiring the appellant to continue complying with procedural directions in the long-running family proceeding.

The balance of convenience strongly favoured the respondent, given the appellant's duplicative proceedings, prior non-compliance, outstanding costs, and the advanced state of the Ontario Court of Justice litigation.

The plaintiff lender moved without notice to set aside an existing default judgment and replace it with separate secured and unsecured judgments after learning that the combined form of judgment prevented assignment of the insured mortgage shortfall claim to the mortgage insurer.

The court held that rr. 59.06(1) and 59.06(2), read liberally with r. 1.04, permitted the relief because the change was formal rather than substantive, no prejudice to the defendants was apparent, and the total indebtedness remained unchanged.

The court treated the original judgment as containing an accidental omission in failing to separate the debts and accepted that the defect was discovered only after judgment.

The motion was granted, the writ of seizure and sale remained effective, and no costs were ordered.

In a construction lien action arising from a fixed-price contract to build a single-family home, the plaintiff contractor sought summary judgment for unpaid invoices and lien enforcement.

The defendants opposed the motion, alleging unauthorized changes, inaccurate billing, deficiencies, and abandonment of the project.

Applying the Hryniak framework, the court held that the record disclosed sharp conflicts on material facts and credibility, including whether changes were approved, who terminated the relationship, whether the work complied with the contract, and whether the invoices were accurate.

Although leave to bring the interlocutory motion was granted for pragmatic reasons under the construction lien procedure, summary judgment was refused and the matter was left for trial.

The defendant moved to dismiss a construction lien action on the basis that the plaintiff lacked legal capacity to commence it.

The court held that the individual who directed the corporation to register the lien and instruct counsel was an undischarged bankrupt, that his shares had vested in his trustee in bankruptcy, and that the corporation had been without any directors for four years.

Although the corporation remained a separate legal person, the court found it plain and obvious that its officer lacked delegated authority to commence the proceeding and that only the trustee, as beneficial owner, could have authorized the litigation or ratified it.

Because the trustee neither authorized nor ratified the proceeding, the claim was a nullity and was dismissed as an abuse of process.

Following success at trial in a trust and reconveyance dispute over eleven parcels of real property, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle.

The court held that the Simplified Procedure cost cap did not apply because the action predated 1 January 2020 and the value of the claim far exceeded the monetary threshold.

Although the plaintiff's 25 October 2022 offer satisfied Rule 49 and the trial result was more favourable than the offer, the court declined to impose enhanced costs because the underlying arrangement was intended to shield property from creditors and both sides had participated in the improper scheme.

The plaintiff was awarded costs only on a partial indemnity basis throughout.

Sentencing for two assaults and one count of uttering threats arising from inmate-on-inmate violence in a locked jail cell.

The offender sought a conditional discharge, relying in part on psychiatric background evidence and his status as a first offender at the time, while the Crown sought short concurrent custodial terms.

The court held that although a discharge would be in the offender's personal best interests, it would be contrary to the public interest given the deliberate custodial violence, the complainant's vulnerability, the attempt to suppress reporting by force and threats, and the significant physical and psychological impact.

Concurrent three-month custodial sentences were imposed together with a secondary DNA order and a s. 743.21 non-communication order.

On a motion for leave to intervene in a pending constitutional challenge to the mental-illness exclusion from medical assistance in dying, the court granted leave to four public-interest interveners to participate in an urgent July motion seeking individual constitutional relief under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

Applying Rule 13.02 and the generous constitutional intervention framework, the court found each proposed intervener had a sufficient interest, distinct perspective, or recognized expertise capable of assisting the court.

The court held it was premature to determine intervention in the underlying application because the evidentiary record was incomplete and additional intervener requests might follow.

Strict limits were imposed: no new evidence, no new issues, no submissions on the individual applicant’s personal circumstances, and no costs.

Investors in a real estate Ponzi scheme brought a motion for certificates of pending litigation against three properties allegedly transferred to family and friends after the collapse of the scheme.

Applying the test for fraudulent conveyance CPL relief, the court found a high probability of success on the underlying breach of contract claim and strong evidence of badges of fraud supporting an intent to defeat or delay creditors.

The court rejected assertions that the transferees had paid fair market value or were unaware of the fraud, except that the balance of convenience did not justify encumbering one residence occupied by a family with a young child.

CPL relief was granted for one property, substitute trust preservation relief was ordered for sale proceeds from another, and relief was denied for the third property.

Following jury convictions for sexual assault and two counts of sexual assault with a weapon arising from repeated sexual abuse of an intimate partner over a lengthy cohabiting relationship, the court determined the sentencing facts consistent with the jury verdicts.

The court found two incidents of non-consensual anal sex, five occasions where rope remained on the complainant after consent was withdrawn, and two non-consensual anal plug incidents, but declined to find controlling and abusive behaviour proved beyond a reasonable doubt as a separate aggravating factor.

Emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and the statutory aggravation for abuse of an intimate partner, the court imposed 6 years' imprisonment on each count concurrent.

The court also made a lifetime SOIRA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a custodial no-contact order.

Following the respondent's substantial success on interim family law motions, she sought costs of $10,000.

The applicant, who was self-represented during the motions, argued that parties should bear their own costs or that any award should be reduced due to his impecuniosity.

The court found the applicant behaved unreasonably by filing excessive materials, which increased costs.

While acknowledging the applicant's financial situation, the court held it did not provide immunity from costs but justified a payment plan.

Costs were fixed at $7,500 payable in installments.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash warrants authorizing forensic searches of his cellphone following charges arising from a political protest that disrupted an off-campus university event.

The court held that the ITO did not establish reasonable and probable grounds to believe the phone would contain evidence of the investigated offences, as the asserted conspiracy rationale was conclusory and the limited evidence of cellphone use was too remote and contextually weak.

The court further held that the warrant lacked sufficient particularity because it authorized analysis 'based upon' the offences, listed sweeping data categories, and imposed no temporal limits.

Both search warrants were quashed, with leave to the respondent to seek a stay.

The offender was sentenced for aggravated assault, firearm offences, and drug trafficking following an unprovoked knife attack to collect a drug debt.

The court imposed a global sentence of 12 years, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while recognizing the offender's rehabilitative potential and the mitigating impact of systemic anti-Black racism detailed in an Impact of Race and Cultural Assessment.

The sentence was reduced by a 1.5:1 Summers credit for pre-sentence custody, a 6-month reduction for a Charter breach involving mistreatment by correctional officers, and a 1-year Duncan credit for harsh lockdown conditions.

The remaining sentence to be served is 47 months and 28 days.