Superior Court of Justice

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement arising from a defaulted loan and promissory note.

The defendants argued the underlying debt was statute-barred, the interest rate was criminal, and the individual defendant did not sign as a guarantor.

The court found the promissory note was a demand obligation, the limitation period was extended by the COVID-19 suspension and a valid email acknowledgment, and the individual defendant clearly signed as a guarantor.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

The accused was tried on multiple sexual assault-related counts involving three complainants, including allegations arising from a blindfolded Play-Doh game, requests to untie swim trunks, and a truth or dare game.

The court refused the Crown’s cross-count similar fact evidence application, holding that the incidents lacked sufficient similarity and had very limited probative value.

Applying the criminal standard of proof, the court found material inconsistencies, memory frailties, and alternative reasonable inferences that prevented the Crown from proving the acts and sexual purpose beyond a reasonable doubt.

The evidence relating to the final incident was found so unreliable that it would be unsafe to convict.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

Following a successful motion by the respondent husband to suspend enforcement of support arrears and reduce ongoing support, the parties submitted written arguments on costs.

The respondent sought $16,353.36 in costs, arguing the applicant was unprepared, uncooperative, and unreasonable.

The applicant argued the respondent was uncooperative regarding a payment plan and was only partially successful.

The court found the respondent was the more successful party but reduced the requested amount to $12,000, ordering it to be set off against his support arrears owed to the applicant.

The parties, who were never married, resolved their parenting issues prior to trial, agreeing to shared parenting.

The remaining issues at trial were child support, ownership of a vehicle, and the respondent's request for a restraining order.

The court dismissed the vehicle claim for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed the request for a restraining order due to insufficient evidence of ongoing harassment or fear for safety.

On child support, the court found the applicant intentionally underemployed in his seasonal concrete business and imputed his income at $55,000.

Set-off child support was ordered based on the parties' respective incomes.

The plaintiffs brought an ex parte request to reconsider a previous order that required them to give notice to the defendants of their motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL).

The plaintiffs argued that circumstances had changed, making an ex parte motion necessary.

The court dismissed the request, finding no significant change in circumstances and noting that the plaintiffs' delay in bringing the motion on notice undermined their claim of urgency.

Following the dismissal of the respondent father's motion regarding jurisdiction and the return of the children to the UAE, the applicant mother sought full indemnity costs.

The court awarded the mother $45,000 in costs on an elevated scale, finding that the father engaged in bad faith, failed to comply with court orders, withheld crucial documents regarding foreign custody proceedings, and ignored reasonable offers to settle.

The Crown brought a count-to-count similar act application during a jury trial for attempted abduction, seeking to use evidence from one count to prove criminal intent on another.

The self-represented accused made no submissions, but amicus curiae and s. 486.3 counsel raised concerns about the timing of the application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the evidence had moderately high probative value, its prejudicial effect was very high because the application was raised after the defence had closed its case, potentially impacting defence strategy and cross-examination.

In an addendum to a judgment on a motion to change, the court determined the exact quantum of a child support overpayment and addressed costs.

The court found the father overpaid $6,168.20 but reduced the repayment obligation to $1,500 due to the mother's financial hardship and the father's blameworthy conduct in failing to provide financial disclosure.

Despite the father's success on the child support issue, the court declined to award costs to either party, citing the father's bad faith non-disclosure.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside the costs provision of a 2018 formal judgment.

The formal order, drafted by the defendants' counsel and approved by the plaintiff's counsel, awarded costs against only one corporate defendant, contrary to the trial judge's endorsement which awarded costs against multiple defendants.

The corporate defendant against whom costs were awarded subsequently declared bankruptcy.

The court found that there was no meeting of the minds between counsel regarding the costs liability and that the formal order contained an error arising from an accidental slip or omission.

The court set aside the costs provision under Rule 59.06 and ordered a rehearing on the issue of costs.

The plaintiff brought an undertakings and refusals motion seeking production of documents relating to a disputed profit-sharing agreement for a construction project.

The defendants argued the documents were irrelevant as the agreement did not cover that project and sought to bifurcate production until entitlement was proven.

The court found the documents relevant to determining both the existence and quantum of the alleged profit-sharing agreement and declined to bifurcate production.

The court ordered production of the specific items refused at the examination for discovery.

The court monitor brought a motion for advice and directions due to the defendants' failure to comply with a prior court order requiring them to provide financial disclosure and a $500,000 retainer.

The defendants opposed the motion but failed to file any evidentiary record.

The court granted the Monitor's motion, ordering the defendants to comply with the prior order, provide the required financial records, and authorizing the release of the retainer funds from a specific bank account.

During final submissions in a family law trial, the respondent brought a motion to amend her answer to seek a higher imputed income for child support based on the applicant's undisclosed commission income.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent had substantial financial information months prior to trial but failed to seek an amendment in a timely manner.

Granting the amendment at this late stage would cause obvious disadvantage to the applicant that could not be compensated by costs or an adjournment.

The plaintiff, a party under disability who suffered a traumatic brain injury after being struck by a car as a pedestrian, sought court approval of a proposed settlement in his tort and accident benefits claims.

The court reviewed the proposed contingency fee agreement and found it was not reasonable, reducing the fees to 25% for the tort action and 15% for the accident benefits claim.

The court also declined to order the settlement funds be paid as a lump sum, directing counsel to obtain structure options to protect the vulnerable plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class proceeding against Sun Life, alleging it incorrectly calculated long-term disability benefits by wrongfully deducting the inflation component from CPP and PSSA benefits.

Sun Life argued the plaintiff failed to meet the certification criteria.

The court found the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action for breach of contract, though not for punitive damages.

The court amended the class definition to include a temporal limit based on the ultimate limitation period and certified the action, finding a class proceeding to be the preferable procedure.

Following cross-motions for summary judgment where the plaintiff was successful in recovering the residual proceeds of a power of sale, the court determined costs and prejudgment interest.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs of $45,515.37, noting the plaintiff beat its Rule 49 offer and the defendants unreasonably rejected a settlement proposal.

The court also awarded prejudgment interest at 2% from the date of the power of sale.

The parties in a high-conflict divorce sought a determination on decision-making authority, parenting time, and child support for their two daughters.

The court granted the mother final decision-making authority due to the parties' inability to communicate effectively and the father's ongoing anger and trust issues.

A 7/7 shared parenting schedule with a midweek visit was ordered to provide stability and reduce exchanges.

Child support payable by the father was reduced by half to $295.50 monthly, as the mother chose not to work while on maternity leave with a new child, and her new partner earned a significant income.

The offender, a repeat firearms offender, was convicted of multiple offences including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, and flight from police.

After conviction, the offender cut his ankle bracelet and absconded, leading the court to proceed with sentencing in his absence.

The court applied the jump and totality principles, noting the offender's lengthy record and the serious danger posed by loaded handguns in public, ultimately imposing a global sentence of 15 years imprisonment less pre-trial custody credit.

The plaintiff brought an ex parte motion to extend the time for service of a statement of claim arising from a slip and fall.

The delay in service was caused by the plaintiff failing to keep her lawyers informed of her contact information, rather than difficulty in serving the defendants.

The court adjourned the motion and directed that the defendants be served with the notice of motion, as it was desirable and preferable for them to be heard on the issue of prejudice.

The applicant mother sought retroactive child support, retroactive section 7 expenses, and ongoing child support at an uncontested trial.

The respondent father had a history of non-compliance, hiding his income, and living abroad.

The court found the father engaged in blameworthy conduct and imputed an income of $125,000 to him for the period of 2012-2020 based on a declined job offer from Google.

The court ordered the father to pay $191,964.06 in retroactive child support and section 7 expenses, ongoing child support of $837 per month, and $10,960 in costs to the self-represented mother.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought an action against the defendant general contractor to enforce a construction lien and for breach of contract regarding structural steel and miscellaneous metals work on a school project.

The court found that the parties had entered into two separate contracts.

The plaintiff failed to preserve its lien rights for the structural steel contract in a timely manner, but its claim was permitted to proceed as a personal judgment under section 63 of the Construction Lien Act.

The plaintiff's lien for the miscellaneous metals contract was validly preserved.

The court conducted a detailed accounting of the base contract prices, approved extras, and valid charge-backs for deficient or incomplete work performed by third parties.

Ultimately, the court awarded the plaintiff a net judgment of $99,346.83 across both contracts.