Superior Court of Justice

The applicants sought an order for adverse possession of a parcel of city-owned parkland that had been enclosed in their backyard by a chain-link fence for decades.

The City acknowledged the traditional test for adverse possession was met but argued the lands were immune as public property.

The court found that the lands were originally expropriated for a high public interest purpose and that private individuals cannot acquire title by fencing off public lands.

The application for adverse possession was dismissed.

The moving party bank brought a motion for an interlocutory Mareva injunction against the responding parties, a group of corporate entities and their sole director, who had obtained over $4.5 million in COVID-19 relief loans.

The bank discovered the corporate entities were previously dissolved and revived shortly before applying for the loans, and that the loan proceeds were diverted to personal investment accounts rather than used for eligible business expenses.

The court found the bank established a strong prima facie case of a fraudulent scheme and a real risk of asset dissipation.

The motion for a Mareva injunction was granted, and costs were awarded to the bank on a partial indemnity scale.

The applicant mother brought a motion under the Hague Convention seeking the return of her 12-month-old child from Mexico to Ontario.

The parties had travelled to Mexico temporarily, but the respondent father subsequently refused to return the child to the mother.

The court applied the hybrid approach to determine habitual residence and found that the child was habitually resident in Ontario.

The court concluded that the father wrongfully retained the child and ordered the child's immediate return to Ontario.

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, a person under disability following a motor vehicle accident, applied for approval of a combined tort and accident benefits settlement of $1,525,000.

The court reviewed the proposed legal fees and disbursements under a contingency agreement, approving the fees but reducing the payable disbursements to only those recovered from the insurer, as per the agreement's terms.

The court declined to approve the proposed structured settlement, ordering plaintiff's counsel to file a case manager report demonstrating how the structure would meet the plaintiff's future needs.

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 defendant was convicted of intimidation of a justice system participant and uttering threats after posting images and threats on Instagram revealing the identity of an undercover police officer who was scheduled to testify against him.

The Crown sought a sentence of 2.5 years, while the defence sought 2 years plus a day.

The court sentenced the defendant to 2.5 years concurrent on each count, finding the offences struck at the heart of the justice system.

With enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, the sentence amounted to time served.

A 10-year weapons prohibition was also ordered.

Following a successful application under the Hague Convention for the return of a wrongfully removed child, the applicant sought full recovery costs and expenses.

The respondent had failed to comply with the court's return order and disappeared with the child in France.

The court found the respondent's conduct to be in bad faith and unreasonable.

The applicant was awarded full recovery costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and necessary expenses under Article 26 of the Hague Convention, totaling $40,413.

The applicant brought a motion to find the respondent mother in contempt for failing to comply with a prior court order requiring their two teenage daughters to return to in-person schooling.

The respondent admitted non-compliance, citing the children's refusal and her own beliefs aligned with a religious organization during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Bouchard v. Sgovio, the court declined to make an immediate contempt finding, instead utilizing its broad enforcement powers under Family Law Rule 1(8) to order the respondent to take specific steps to enroll the children for the upcoming school year.

The contempt motion was adjourned to monitor compliance.

The bankrupt applied for an absolute discharge from bankruptcy, which was opposed by his former spouse and the bankruptcy trustee.

The bankruptcy was filed shortly after the former spouse obtained a family law judgment for equalization and costs.

The court found that the bankrupt had transferred significant assets to his mother and a business associate prior to bankruptcy to defeat his former spouse's claims, and failed to disclose these transfers or a personal injury settlement to the trustee.

The court held that the bankrupt's conduct was evasive and untruthful, and that he used the bankruptcy process to avoid his family law obligations.

The court refused an absolute discharge and granted a conditional discharge requiring the bankrupt to pay $170,036.50 to the trustee, representing the compromised equalization claim and costs.

The defendant, Sun Life, brought a motion for summary judgment in a class proceeding regarding the calculation of annual indexing increases on long-term disability benefits.

The plaintiff argued for a reverse summary judgment.

The court found that the interpretation of the policy and the correct methodology to calculate the annual indexing of benefits where 'other income' is deducted raised a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court dismissed both the defendant's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's request for a reverse summary judgment.

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 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 respondent mother brought a motion to enforce a final parenting order, alleging the self-represented father had unilaterally withheld one child from her care and undermined her relationship with both children.

The court permitted the motion to proceed without a prior case conference under Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules, finding urgency and a deteriorating relationship with the second child such that delay would be contrary to the children's best interests.

Applying authorities requiring a parent to take positive steps to ensure compliance with access and parenting orders, the court found the father in breach and rejected the position that a teenager's resistance excused non-compliance.

The court ordered prompt family reconciliation therapy and warned that continued breach could result in contempt consequences, while deferring non-urgent financial issues to the upcoming case conference.

The plaintiff requested clarification regarding the scope of an order compelling production of documents.

The court had previously found a joint retainer existed between the plaintiff and the defendant.

The court clarified that as between joint venture parties, communications with the jointly retained lawyer relating to the subject matter of the joint venture are not privileged, even if the communications involved matters where the parties' interests were adverse or concerned withdrawing from the joint venture.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought an action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment against the defendant general contractor and owner after a dispute over site conditions for waterproofing work.

The defendant counterclaimed, alleging the plaintiff abandoned the project and failed to provide adequate manpower.

The court found that the plaintiff did not breach the contract and reasonably refused to apply waterproofing in unsuitable, wet conditions.

The court held that the defendant anticipatorily repudiated the contract by issuing an unsubstantiated Notice of Default, seizing the plaintiff's equipment, and hiring a replacement contractor.

The plaintiff was awarded $201,871.74 for outstanding money owed, while the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident for which the defendants admitted liability.

The trial proceeded by judge alone to determine whether the plaintiff's injuries met the statutory threshold and to assess damages.

The court found that the plaintiff sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function, specifically chronic widespread pain, mild neurocognitive disorder, and psychological symptoms.

The court dismissed the defendants' threshold motion and awarded the plaintiff $100,000 in general damages, $38,371 for past income loss, $201,294.72 for housekeeping, and various amounts for future care costs and out-of-pocket expenses, with future income loss to be calculated based on a projected retirement date.

The defendant moved to dismiss a proposed class action for employee misclassification due to delay.

The action was subject to the one-year mandatory dismissal deadline under section 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, which expired on October 1, 2021.

The self-represented plaintiff advised the court that he had settled his personal claims, was unaware his former counsel had commenced a class action, and did not wish to proceed as a representative plaintiff.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action with no costs.

The accused brought a Garofoli application to quash a search warrant and two production orders issued during a tax fraud investigation.

The court found the search warrant invalid because the information to obtain (ITO) was never sworn under oath.

The court also found the production orders invalid because the affiant swore the ITOs without personal knowledge of their contents, and one of the ITOs was commissioned by a lawyer not authorized to take oaths in Ontario.

The application was granted and the warrants were quashed.

On a motion for temporary spousal support following a 32-year marriage, the court held the moving party established a prima facie entitlement to support based on need arising from reduced earning capacity linked to health issues.

The court accepted that the responding party had ability to pay, while adjusting income and taking into account uncontroverted payments toward joint family debt.

Using the SSAG ranges as a guide for interim relief, the court ordered a without-prejudice holding order of $1,000 per month effective June 1, 2022, pending further order.

Costs were fixed in favour of the moving party.