Superior Court of Justice

The moving party mother brought a motion to change seeking to impose conditions on the responding party father's parenting time with their seven-year-old son, who was recently diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The court found a material change in circumstances and ordered a temporary stay of the existing parenting order, replacing it with a gradual reintegration plan facilitated by the child's behavioural therapist.

The mother's requests for sole decision-making authority and to change the child's surname were deferred and dismissed, respectively.

The offenders were found guilty by a jury of exercising control, direction, or influence over the movements of two complainants who provided sexual services, and of receiving a financial benefit from those activities.

The court found the offenders exploited the young, vulnerable complainants for profit, with Mr. Deidun providing drugs and transportation, and Ms. Bernard booking hotel rooms.

After considering the Tang/Miller factors, the parity principle, pre-sentence custody, and Downes credit for restrictive bail conditions, the court sentenced Mr. Deidun to a net term of 30 months less 10 days, and Ms. Bernard to a net term of 11 months and 15 days.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The incident occurred after the appellant, the complainant, and her partner returned to a residence after drinking.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's testimony as illogical and accepted the complainant's evidence.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in applying the W.(D.) principles, assessing credibility, and refusing an adjournment for a Seaboyer application.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's factual conclusions were supported by the evidence and there were no errors of law.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion, the parties could not agree on the quantum of costs.

The plaintiff argued for a nominal award of $1,500 to $2,000, while the defendant sought $7,500 plus HST.

The court rejected the plaintiff's submission for a nominal award, noting the plaintiff had refused a reasonable request to amend an existing order regarding defence medical examinations.

The court found the defendant's request proportionate and consistent with a previous order, fixing costs at $7,500 plus HST payable forthwith by the plaintiff.

The accused was arrested for armed robbery following a high-speed police chase and foot pursuit.

He brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his s. 7, s. 10(a), and s. 10(b) rights due to the arresting officer's use of force and a delay of over seven hours in facilitating access to counsel.

The court dismissed the s. 7 and s. 10(a) claims, finding the force used was reasonable and the short delay in advising him of the reasons for arrest was justified.

However, the court found a serious breach of the implementational component of s. 10(b), as the police failed to take proactive steps to facilitate access to counsel while the accused was at the hospital and unjustifiably delayed access at the police station.

The determination of the appropriate remedy was deferred to sentencing.

The moving defendants, an elderly couple, brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained against them four years prior.

They discovered the judgment when attempting to refinance their home and faced potential mortgage enforcement proceedings.

The defendants denied being served with the statement of claim and provided an arguable defence, asserting that a signature on a dishonoured cheque was forged.

The court found the defendants moved reasonably promptly given the COVID-19 pandemic, provided a plausible explanation for the default, and raised an arguable defence.

The court set aside the default judgment, emphasizing the preference for determining disputes on their merits, and awarded the plaintiffs $1,500 in costs thrown away.

The offender, an aviation mechanic, was convicted of attempting to import cocaine and possessing proceeds of crime after participating in a police sting operation.

He used his airport security clearance to retrieve a package he believed contained one kilogram of cocaine from an airplane panel.

The court found his moral culpability was significantly higher than a mere courier due to his breach of trust and planning.

He was sentenced to a net term of 4 years and 11 months in custody.

The special committee of FAX Capital Corp. brought a motion for an interim order under section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act to approve the procedure for calling and holding a special meeting of shareholders.

The meeting was to consider a proposed plan of arrangement intended to take the company private.

The court found that the applicant was acting in good faith and met the statutory requirements.

The interim order was granted, establishing the mechanics for notice, voting, and dissent rights.

The parties separated in 2011 after 25 years of marriage.

The husband sought a divorce, an unequal division of the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home, half of the funds allegedly withdrawn by the wife from a joint account, half of an RESP, and reimbursement for junk removal costs.

The court granted the divorce and ordered an equal division of the home sale proceeds, finding no basis for an unequal division.

The husband's claims regarding the joint account and RESP were dismissed, as the RESP was deemed a trust for the child.

The wife was ordered to reimburse the husband for half the junk removal costs.

The applicants, as first mortgagees of a commercial property, attempted to take possession following the respondent's default by changing the locks early in the morning.

The respondent's principal subsequently cut the locks and re-entered the property, leading to police involvement.

The applicants brought an urgent application for an injunction and a declaration that they were mortgagees in possession.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants did not take peaceable possession as they anticipated resistance, and held that the applicants should have pursued a standard power of sale process rather than resorting to self-help measures that breach the peace.

The applicant wife brought a motion to dismiss the respondent husband's Motion to Change due to his failure to pay over $800,000 in support arrears, a $100,000 precondition payment, and previous costs.

The husband had made no voluntary support payments since 2007 and failed to provide meaningful financial disclosure.

The court found the husband's non-compliance to be extensive, persistent, and willful.

The court ordered that the husband's pleadings be struck in 61 days unless he pays the $100,000 precondition, outstanding costs, and current costs of $17,000, and provides the required financial disclosure.

The applicant father brought a motion to terminate his child support obligations for his two adult children and to rescind any arrears.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing that the younger child remained a 'child of the marriage' under the Divorce Act due to various disabilities preventing him from withdrawing from her charge.

The court found that the mother failed to provide sufficient medical evidence of the alleged disabilities and noted the child had successfully obtained employment and Employment Insurance benefits.

The court terminated child support for both children, recalculated the amounts owed based on the father's income, and fixed the arrears at $1,370.

The offender, an 18-year-old first-time offender, was convicted of arson after participating in the deliberate burning of a stolen pickup truck using gasoline in a dense residential complex.

The Crown sought a net sentence of nine months' custody, while the defence sought time served or a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for serious arson offences, declining a conditional sentence.

The offender was sentenced to seven months' net custody followed by two years of probation.

The plaintiff, a former partner in a law firm with the defendants, brought an action for a declaration of partnership dissolution, an accounting, and damages for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion of shares.

The court found that the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement regarding the plaintiff's departure from the partnership, precluding further adjustments or liability for a Vancouver office lease.

However, the court found the defendants liable for conversion of the plaintiff's personal shares held as security, awarding $65,226.15 in damages.

The court also awarded $50,000 in damages for breach of fiduciary duty due to the defendants' failure to disclose partnership draws taken shortly before the plaintiff's departure, though it rejected claims that this failure caused the plaintiff's subsequent significant tax liabilities.

The plaintiff, a dental hygienist, was dismissed without cause after less than six months of employment.

She brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal damages.

The defendant employer alleged she had fabricated evidence of her job search to prove mitigation.

The court found the employer failed to prove the mitigation fraud allegation.

Applying the Waksdale rule, the court held the employment contract's termination clause was void because its 'for cause' provision violated the Employment Standards Act.

The court awarded a three-month notice period and declined to deduct the plaintiff's CERB payments from the damages award.

In a historical sexual assault prosecution, the court applied the W.(D.) framework to competing testimony from the complainant and the defendant.

The complainant's account was plausible and personally convincing, but material additions and inconsistencies across her prior statements and trial evidence raised reliability concerns.

The defendant's evidence consisted largely of firm denials and an unpersuasive speculative motive theory, but it could not be rejected as self-serving deception.

The court was left unsure what, if anything, occurred and held that the Crown had not proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The respondent Estate Trustee brought a motion to clarify a prior Preservation Order to permit her to withdraw Estate funds to pay her legal and accounting fees incurred in defending an application to remove her as Estate Trustee.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Preservation Order explicitly restricted payments to legitimate taxes and liabilities, which did not include the trustee's personal legal fees in a dispute over her removal.

The court also extended the timeline for the passing of accounts.

Following a successful confidentiality motion by the defendant, the parties submitted written costs submissions.

Both parties improperly filed additional unauthorized materials, for which the court denied leave.

The defendant sought $54,000 in costs, while the plaintiff argued for $3,000 based on a prior Federal Court decision.

The court rejected both extremes, finding the defendant's materials excessive but acknowledging the complexity and importance of the motion.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $28,570.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants for environmental contamination migrating from the defendants' property onto the plaintiff's adjacent lands.

The court found that chlorinated solvents (TCE) originated from the defendants' property and flowed via groundwater onto the plaintiff's lands.

The court held the defendants liable in nuisance, negligence, and trespass.

The court also pierced the corporate veil, finding the individual defendant jointly and severally liable due to his egregious conduct and failure to remediate the property despite promises to do so.

The court ordered the defendants to remediate their property and awarded damages of $1,809,908.80, with a further $2,800,000 payable if remediation is not completed on schedule.

During a sexual assault trial, the court held a ruling on whether the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent should be left with the jury.

The alleged assault occurred in a dark room where multiple people were sleeping after consuming alcohol.

The accused claimed the complainant initiated sexual contact, while the complainant testified she awoke to being assaulted and did not consent.

Applying the air of reality test, the court found that the accused's evidence, if assumed true, put the defence in play.

The court ruled the defence would be left with the jury, as it was for the jury to assess whether the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain consent.