Superior Court of Justice

The moving party, a director and disputed shareholder of the defendant corporation, sought leave under s. 246 of the Business Corporations Act to defend an action brought by the plaintiff for unpaid project management fees.

The motion was opposed by the plaintiff and other shareholders of the defendant corporation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to establish that he was acting in good faith or that defending the action was in the best interests of the corporation, given the disproportionate costs of litigation, the risks of an increased claim, and the opposition from other stakeholders.

The Crown applied for an order permitting the adult complainant in a sexual assault trial to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) and with a support person.

The complainant suffered from an anxiety and panic disorder that she believed worsened after testifying at the preliminary inquiry.

The court granted the application, finding that testifying via CCTV would facilitate the complainant giving a full and candid account of the alleged acts.

The court-appointed receiver of MJardin Group, Inc. brought a motion for a discharge order to facilitate the transition from receivership proceedings to proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The proposed order provided for the receiver's discharge upon the issuance of a CCAA Initial Order, while preserving the receiver's charges.

As the CCAA Initial Order had been granted, the court granted the motion and signed the discharge order.

The applicants sought an order directing the substituted buyer to transfer title of a pre-construction property to them.

The respondent had assigned his Agreement of Purchase and Sale to the applicants but failed to seek the builder's consent or pay the required fees.

Instead, as the property value rose, the respondent amended the agreement to substitute his realtor's wife as the buyer.

The court found that the respondent breached his duty of good faith by failing to take reasonable steps to complete the assignment.

The court ordered the substituted buyer, who held title in trust, to transfer the property to the applicants upon payment of the originally agreed purchase price.

The defendant was convicted of three counts of murder.

The court previously imposed concurrent life sentences with 25 years of parole ineligibility for the first two counts, adjourning the third count pending the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Bissonnette.

Following the release of Bissonnette, which struck down s. 745.51 of the Criminal Code as unconstitutional, the court imposed a concurrent life sentence with a concurrent 25-year period of parole ineligibility for the third count.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought a pre-trial application under s. 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay.

The application was filed late, violating the Criminal Proceedings Rules and the provincial Practice Direction.

The court summarily dismissed the application, finding that the late filing would cause systemic delays and that the application had no reasonable prospect of success, as the delay was primarily attributable to the defence's re-election and the Covid-19 pandemic.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave under Rule 48.04 to amend their Statement of Claim, move the action to the Simplified Rules, and strike the jury notice.

The action, arising from a motor vehicle accident, had already been set down for trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no substantial or unexpected change in circumstances to justify granting leave.

Furthermore, the court held that the right to a jury trial is a substantive right and there was no advantage to moving the action to the Simplified Procedure at this late stage, especially given the plaintiffs' failure to serve expert reports.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay was 36 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The court deducted 7.5 months of delay caused by the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and a subsequent technical issue at the preliminary inquiry.

The remaining delay of 28.5 months fell below the presumptive ceiling, and the applicant failed to establish that it was a clear case of unreasonable delay.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiffs requested a case conference to fix a trial date despite failing to complete a mandatory mediation by the court-ordered deadline.

One of the plaintiffs booked a vacation that conflicted with the scheduled mediation date, showing disregard for the court's prior order.

The court refused to dispense with the mediation requirement or hold a trial date as a placeholder, and consequently struck the action from the trial list until mediation is completed and the matter is truly ready for trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order administratively dismissing her 2011 slip and fall action for delay.

The action was dismissed after failing to be restored to the trial list within two years of being struck on consent.

Applying the four-part test from Prescott v. Barbon, the court found the plaintiff's counsel's documented medical condition provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The court concluded the plaintiff always intended to prosecute the action, moved forthwith upon learning of the dismissal, and the defendants suffered no significant prejudice.

The motion was granted and the action restored to the trial list.

The appellant appealed summary conviction findings of guilt for sexual assault, assault, criminal harassment, and breach offences arising from allegations by a former intimate partner.

He argued that the trial judge failed to consider corroborative defence evidence, failed to address material inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, conflated the treatment of accused and non-accused witnesses, and applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence.

The appeal court held that the trial judge properly applied the governing credibility principles, including the W.(D.) framework, gave adequate reasons, and reasonably rejected the appellant's evidence as neither credible nor reliable.

The court found no material misapprehension of evidence, no reversible credibility error, and no unfairness in the scrutiny applied.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a lakefront property.

The transaction failed to close after disputes arose regarding the vendor's non-resident tax holdback and the lack of legal access over a private road.

The court found that because neither party was ready to close on the agreed date, time was no longer of the essence and the contract remained valid.

Given the unique characteristics of the property, the court ordered specific performance, set a new closing date, and directed a mini-trial for the remaining damages claims.

The plaintiffs brought an ex parte motion to approve an infant settlement and a contingency fee agreement following a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The court approved the settlement amount for the minor plaintiff but reduced the requested legal fees, finding the proposed fees disproportionate to the minor's share of the global settlement and the complexity of the case.

The court also ordered the settlement funds to be held in a trust account until the minor reaches age 25, rather than being paid into court and released at age 18.

The applicant challenged contingency fees charged by her former personal injury lawyers in relation to a tort settlement and an accident benefits settlement arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court found special circumstances under the Solicitors Act, including non-compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements governing contingency fee agreements, material drafting errors, failure to provide the client with a copy of the agreement, and lack of clarity about when accident benefits fees would increase from 15% to 30%.

Applying the fairness and reasonableness analysis for contingency fee retainers, the court held the agreement was unenforceable and ordered an assessment of the lawyers' fees, charges, and disbursements.

Pending assessment, the court ordered immediate repayment of half of the fees charged on the accident benefits settlement, with HST and interest, but declined immediate repayment on the tort file.

The applicant father and respondent mother sought a determination on the primary residence and parenting time for their four-year-old child, who was about to commence school.

The parties lived four hours apart, making their previous week-about arrangement unworkable.

The court considered the factors under s. 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, including the child's strong bonds with half-siblings in both households.

The court found that the father's plan better maintained the child's relationships with all siblings and provided more consistent daily care.

Primary residence was awarded to the father, with the mother receiving alternating weekends, holidays, and week-about parenting time during the summer.

The defendant freight forwarder brought a motion for partial summary judgment on its counterclaim for unpaid invoices.

The plaintiff had contracted the defendant to transport machinery from Brazil to Ontario, which was delayed and invoiced at a significantly higher amount than quoted.

The plaintiff sued for damages and the defendant counterclaimed for the unpaid invoice balance, relying on a clause in its Standard Trading Conditions requiring payment without set-off.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the disputed invoice amounts were deeply connected to the plaintiff's underlying claim and that granting partial summary judgment would not reduce the complexity or duration of the upcoming trial, risking inconsistent findings of fact.

The appellants sought to adjourn their appeal of an associate judge's ruling on undertakings and refusals due to the unavailability of their lead counsel.

The appellants also sought to file transcripts of the multi-day hearing before the associate judge, which the respondent opposed.

The court granted the adjournment, setting a peremptory date for the appeal.

However, the court denied the request to file transcripts, noting they were unnecessary as they contained only legal arguments and the appellants had not referenced them in their factum.

The court also directed the parties to settle the underlying order with the associate judge.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving with a blood alcohol level over 80mg.

The trial judge found the police breached the appellant's s. 8 and s. 9 Charter rights by handcuffing him pre-arrest while waiting for a roadside screening device, but admitted the breath readings under s. 24(2).

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in principle by treating Charter-compliant behaviour as mitigating and by finding the officer made a legal mistake without evidence.

Conducting a fresh s. 24(2) analysis, the court found the pre-arrest handcuffing was a serious breach that was unnecessary and degrading.

The evidence was excluded and an acquittal entered.

In a high-conflict parenting dispute, the responding parent moved for a contempt finding arising from repeated non-compliance with interim week-about parenting orders concerning two of the children.

Applying the contempt framework, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the moving party had notice of clear orders and failed to take the concrete parental steps necessary to require the children’s compliance, instead leaving them with the impression that parenting time was optional.

The court accepted that caution is required in family contempt matters and, prioritizing the children’s best interests, declined to proceed immediately to a formal contempt order.

A staged reintegration order was imposed for June through August 2022, with the original week-about regime to resume on September 1, 2022, and a further status hearing scheduled.

The accused was arrested for impaired driving after fleeing the scene of a serious motor vehicle collision.

The police failed to make a breath demand at the roadside and subsequently failed to advise the accused of his increased jeopardy when they learned the victim had suffered life-altering injuries.

The breath technician made a delayed breath demand at the station without providing the accused a further opportunity to consult counsel.

The court found multiple breaches of the accused's rights under ss. 8 and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the cumulative impact of the breaches on the accused's protected interests warranted the exclusion of the breath test results under s. 24(2).