Superior Court of Justice

In a judge-alone criminal trial involving allegations against a teacher by two former students, the court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess competing evidence.

The court accepted the Crown’s evidence on one complainant’s counts, relying on the logic of her account, contemporaneous email evidence, and extrinsic evidence concerning the layout of the accused’s condominium, and rejected the accused’s denials.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference in relation to that complainant.

The court was left with a reasonable doubt on the counts involving the second complainant because of reliability concerns and implausibilities in her account, and entered acquittals on those counts.

In the context of CCAA proceedings, the applicants brought a motion to approve a Support Agreement, a Backstop Commitment Letter, and a Meetings Order.

The court approved the uncontested portions of the agreements and the Meetings Order.

The court also determined that there would be two classes of creditors for voting on the Plan: a Secured Creditor Class and an Unsecured Creditor Class, with the latter including Term Loan Lenders and various class action plaintiffs.

The court ordered expedited summary proceedings to value the class action claims and requested supplementary submissions on the differential consideration offered to unsecured creditors.

Following the dismissal of the mother's motion and the granting of the father's motion regarding parenting time, the father sought costs on a full recovery basis.

The court awarded the father $35,837.00 in full recovery costs, citing the mother's bad faith, her history of unpaid costs awards totaling nearly $450,000, and her inappropriate direct communications with the court.

However, the court declined the father's request to deduct the costs award from his monthly spousal support payments, noting that doing so could impede the mother's therapeutic progress and delay her reunification with the child.

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.

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 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 offender, a 53-year-old biological father, was convicted of multiple offences including incest, sexual assault causing bodily harm, and making child pornography against his 15-to-17-year-old daughter.

The abuse resulted in the daughter giving birth to a child fathered by the offender.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including the breach of trust, the resulting pregnancy, and the offender's lack of remorse and attempts to blame his son.

The court sentenced the offender to a total of 12 years in a federal penitentiary, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and the separation of the offender from society.

The accused was charged with three counts of sexual offences against his two stepdaughters.

The allegations spanned several years and involved both touching and intercourse.

The accused testified and emphatically denied the allegations, providing a detailed and credible account of events.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court accepted the accused's exculpatory evidence under the first prong, finding him entirely credible.

The court also found that even if the accused's evidence was not fully accepted, it raised a reasonable doubt under the second prong, and the frailties in the Crown's evidence raised a reasonable doubt under the third prong.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

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 former employee moved to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim without leave to amend.

The plaintiffs, a dentist and his practice, alleged the defendant defamed them and sabotaged their computers during her brief employment.

The court struck the poorly drafted statement of claim but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend, finding that tenable causes of action for defamation, breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy were possible on the facts alleged.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay $9,000 in costs for delivering a deficient pleading.

The accused brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter seeking a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The projected delay from arrest to the end of the trial was 39.5 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The court found that the delay was primarily attributable to the exceptional circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic, which caused significant court closures and systemic backlogs.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for fraudulent diversion of equity, loss of opportunity, and punitive damages arising from two transfers of her matrimonial home.

The parties had entered into an unwritten management plan where the defendant held the property in trust to secure better financing while the plaintiff continued to reside there.

The court found that a fiduciary relationship existed, but the defendant did not breach any fiduciary duty or fraudulently divert equity.

The defendant provided a full and proper accounting of the funds, and the plaintiff failed to prove any damages.

The action was dismissed.

The defendant, a Spanish law firm, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, an Ontario corporation, sued the defendant for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation regarding the status of patent applications in Panama and Costa Rica, which had lapsed.

The court applied the Van Breda test and found that the plaintiff failed to establish a good arguable case for the tort of misrepresentation occurring in Ontario, as the plaintiff had not provided the necessary powers of attorney in time and the defendant had not provided incorrect information.

The motion was granted and the claim was dismissed.

The accused, on trial for multiple offences including sexual assault with a weapon and unlawful confinement, brought a motion for a directed verdict on three counts at the close of the Crown's case.

The court applied the Sheppard test to determine if there was any evidence upon which a reasonable jury could convict.

The court found no evidence supporting the sexual intent or use of a weapon during the specific acts alleged in Counts 1 and 2, amending them to lesser included offences.

However, the court found sufficient evidence of coercive restraint to leave the unlawful confinement charge (Count 5) to the jury.

The motion was granted in part.

The applicants, former members of the respondent church, sought to declare the termination of their membership null and void, arguing the church failed to follow its by-laws and denied them natural justice by not holding an oral hearing.

The court found that the church's decision-making body was properly constituted and had sufficiently investigated the applicants' disruptive conduct.

The court held that natural justice in this context did not require an oral hearing, and the applicants were given an adequate opportunity to respond to the case against them.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

During a trial regarding an insurance claim denial, the plaintiff brought a mid-trial motion to exclude the testimony of two of the defendant's witnesses.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant's financial compensation of these witnesses for their preparation time and trial attendance constituted an abuse of process.

The court found that the witnesses, who were former employees and agents of the defendant, were 'professional' fact witnesses who required extensive preparation time to review voluminous documents.

The court held that compensating such witnesses for their preparation time is reasonable and does not automatically taint their evidence.

The motion to exclude the testimony was dismissed.

The Crown applied under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for an order allowing the 18-year-old complainant in a sexual assault trial to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV).

The complainant, who is on the autism spectrum and experiences panic attacks, expressed fear of confronting the accused in person.

The defence opposed the application, arguing the complainant testified without issue at the preliminary inquiry and lacked medical documentation for her diagnoses.

The court granted the application, finding that the threshold for testimonial aids is whether it would facilitate a full and candid account, and concluded that CCTV testimony would enhance the truth-seeking function of the trial.

The applicant mortgagors sought to set aside a Notice of Sale issued by the respondent mortgagee, arguing that the notice and a subsequent mortgage statement claimed unlawful interest rates and fees.

The court found that while the 18% interest rate charged on arrears likely violated section 8 of the Interest Act, the original Notice of Sale was valid as the disputed amounts were not sufficient to invalidate it.

Furthermore, the applicants were unable to obtain sufficient financing to redeem the mortgage even if the disputed charges were removed.

The application to stay the sale was dismissed, with disputed funds from the sale ordered to be paid into court.

The applicants were wholly successful in an application regarding the control of a non-profit organization.

They sought their costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court noted the respondents' unjustified delays, failure to respond to settlement offers, and improper conduct in locking the applicants out of corporate accounts.

The court rejected the respondent's argument of inability to pay and awarded the applicants costs fixed at $45,000 all-inclusive.

The applicant brought an urgent motion seeking exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, a restraining order, child and spousal support, and parenting orders.

The court rescinded the ex parte restraining order but continued the applicant's exclusive possession of the home, ordering her to pay its carrying costs.

The respondent was ordered to pay table child support and his proportionate share of section 7 expenses, while the claim for temporary spousal support was dismissed due to lack of ability to pay.

The court also made temporary orders regarding medical decision-making, parenting time, and non-removal of the children from Ottawa.