Superior Court of Justice

The court considered whether police infringed the accused’s rights under sections 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter by delaying the right to counsel and failing to promptly inform him of increased jeopardy after a search revealed drugs and a gun.

The court found breaches of both rights but concluded, after a Grant analysis, that the evidence should not be excluded.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The decision addresses three main issues: (1) the application to re-open the trial to reconsider the s. 24(2) Charter analysis in light of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in R. v. McGowan-Morris, (2) the application for a stay of proceedings due to delay in conducting the accused’s bail hearing, and (3) the appropriate sentence for the accused, Ivor Shawn Young, following his conviction for unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a restricted firearm in a motor vehicle, and possession of cocaine.

The court found a breach of the accused’s s. 10(b) Charter rights but concluded that exclusion of the evidence was not warranted.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed, and a sentence of three years’ imprisonment (less credit for pre-sentence custody and Downes credit) was imposed.

The moving defendants, KenzoKai Metal Finishing Inc. and Cristian Bran, sought to set aside a default judgment obtained by Ampere Metal Finishing Inc. The court found that service of the statement of claim was defective as against both defendants, and that the default judgment was therefore irregularly obtained.

The court set aside the default judgment, the noting in default, and all related enforcement steps, including garnishments, and ordered the return of any garnished funds.

The court also found that, even if service had been proper, the Mountain View criteria would have justified setting aside the judgment on the merits.

The accused, C.D., was charged with sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code, alleged to have occurred over a 12-year period during a common law relationship.

The complainant described a pattern of emotionally manipulative and non-consensual sexual activity, but was only able to provide specific details of three incidents at trial.

The court found that, while the accused's behaviour was manipulative and at times abhorrent, the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity in the three described instances, nor that the accused knew of any lack of consent.

C.D. was acquitted.

This costs decision follows a summary judgment motion by Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) against 1108135 Ontario Inc. operating as Trends Décor and Roger Alonzo.

The court apportioned costs after finding the corporate defendant liable for both debts and Mr. Alonzo liable only for the Business Operating Line.

The court fixed costs at $11,475.35, payable jointly and severally by the defendants, after considering the parties’ relative success and the reasonableness of the costs claimed.

The Corporation of the City of Quinte West sought a declaration of abandonment and transfer of title for the Stone Church United Cemetery.

The court found that the cemetery lands were abandoned within the meaning of the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, and granted the requested declaratory and ancillary relief to facilitate the transfer of ownership to the municipality.

The court also dispensed with the requirements for service and filing a factum, given the lack of opposition and the straightforward nature of the application.

The court considered a motion by the Defendants for security for costs against the Plaintiff Beijing Hehe Fengye Investment Co. Limited (BHF) in a high-value commercial litigation.

The court reviewed the legal framework under Rule 56.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the justness of ordering security, the merits of the claim, and the financial circumstances of the parties.

The court found that BHF did not have sufficient assets in Ontario, and the claims of BHF and co-plaintiff Rong Kai Hong were not joint such that one could satisfy the other's costs.

The court ordered BHF to post $140,000 as security for costs, balancing the interests of both parties and ensuring access to justice.

The court considered competing motions regarding the matrimonial home: the respondent sought exclusive possession and a transfer of the home into his name, while the applicant sought partition and sale under the Partition Act.

The court found that both motions were, in substance, for final relief and analyzed them accordingly.

The court held that the respondent had not established grounds for exclusive possession or for a transfer of the home, and that the applicant was entitled to an order for sale, but not exclusive control of the sale process.

Directions were given for the sale and for the holding of proceeds in trust.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis.

This costs endorsement addresses the fixing of costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff’s action for delay.

The court reviews the parties’ submissions on quantum, the applicable legal principles under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, and the reasonableness of the fees claimed.

The court ultimately fixes costs in favour of the defendant Town of Bracebridge, finding the amounts sought to be fair and proportionate given the complexity and history of the litigation.

The court considered a motion to strike or exclude expert reports filed by the plaintiffs in a proposed class action concerning alleged regulatory failures in the oversight of syndicated mortgage investments.

The court found that the expert evidence was relevant to the leave motion but ultimately struck the affidavit of one expert and portions of another for lack of impartiality and proper qualifications.

The decision clarifies the threshold requirements for admissibility of expert evidence, including relevance, qualifications, and impartiality, in the context of motions for leave under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019.

The plaintiff, Pushpinder Dhanoa, sought enforcement of a mortgage loan against the defendant, Bharati Ramnarine, who defaulted on payments.

Ramnarine argued the mortgage contract was void due to alleged misrepresentation by the mortgage agent, Satinder Gill, and counterclaimed for damages.

The court found no misrepresentation or breach by Dhanoa, held that Ramnarine understood the terms, and ordered her to pay the outstanding amount and deliver possession of the property to Dhanoa.

The court considered whether Seedjan Sulaiman Khail, who stabbed his father to death, was not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder.

The only issue in dispute was whether the accused’s mental disorder rendered him incapable of knowing that his actions were wrong.

After reviewing the psychiatric evidence and the accused’s history, the court found that while Mr. Sulaiman Khail suffered from a mental disorder at the time of the offence, he did not lack the capacity to know that his actions were wrong according to the ordinary moral standards of society.

The court found him guilty of second-degree murder.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The plaintiff, Alma Cherry, requested an adjournment due to health issues and the volume of materials recently served on her.

The court granted the adjournment, scheduling the motion for December 1, 2025, and directed the defendants not to serve any further materials on Ms. Cherry before the motion.

The court clarified that related proceedings involving Ms. Cherry and Novex Insurance Company would not affect the timing of the present motion.

This decision concerns the allocation of costs following the dismissal of a claim in a long-running personal injury action.

The court addresses the entitlement to costs between the parties, the impact of delay and procedural history, and whether costs should be awarded personally against counsel.

The court ultimately awards partial indemnity costs to the defendant, Terrence John Brake, but declines to order costs against the plaintiff's lawyers personally.

The court considered whether Gan Yeladim Day Care Centre (GYDC) was entitled to remain in the premises of Beth Emeth Bais Yehuda Synagogue (BEBY) after the expiry of its lease and subsequent failed negotiations for a new lease.

The court found that GYDC had properly given notice of its intention to renew, and that the lease was effectively extended for another year based on the parties’ conduct and history.

The court granted GYDC equitable relief, allowing it to remain until August 31, 2026, to find a new location, and awarded costs against BEBY.

The court dispensed with the requirement for litigation guardians residing in China to file affidavits in support of court approval motions for settlements involving parties under disability, due to legal and logistical barriers under Chinese law.

The decision reviews the collaborative resolution of liability and settlement issues following a major motor coach accident, the apportionment of limited insurance funds, and the purpose of the court approval process under Ontario law.

The court found that requiring affidavits would be disproportionate and unnecessary, and that the interests of justice are served by waiving the requirement.

This decision addresses the admissibility of ante-mortem statements made by the deceased, Mark Bakir, in the prosecution of Alessandro Giammichele for murder.

The court reviews the law on hearsay, including both the traditional state of mind exception and the principled approach, and applies these to various statements made by the deceased to friends and family regarding a loan and the accused's failure to repay.

The court finds most of the statements admissible, with some exceptions for opinion and cumulative evidence.

The court granted the defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s claim for specific performance of an alleged agreement to purchase a supermarket business, finding that the plaintiff failed to plead material facts showing acceptance of the agreement, lacked standing, and that the alleged agreement was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

Leave to amend was granted only to clarify standing for a claim for return of deposit.

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.

The court considered an application by Donna Mary Whibbs for an order declaring Daniel Lee Dobson a vexatious litigant under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The decision reviews the parties' history of litigation, including proceedings before the Landlord and Tenant Board, restraining order applications, and multiple Small Claims Court actions.

The court found that Dobson had persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings and conducted litigation in a vexatious manner, primarily to harass the applicant and her counsel.

The court granted a tailored vexatious litigant order prohibiting Dobson from instituting or continuing proceedings against Whibbs and her counsel without leave of the court.