Superior Court of Justice

Marlene Robinson applied for an order declaring her husband, Kenneth Robinson, incapable of managing his property and sought appointment as his guardian of property under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The court found Kenneth Robinson incapable due to dementia and appointed Marlene Robinson as his guardian of property.

The court addressed concerns raised by the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee regarding bond security and occupation rent, declining to impose them given the circumstances and the applicant's financial struggles.

An amended management plan was required before any sale of the matrimonial home.

The accused sought a review of a prior bail denial under section 520 of the Criminal Code, arguing a material change in circumstances.

The court considered a "beefed-up" release plan including GPS monitoring and culturally appropriate counselling.

Despite reservations about the accused's credibility and lack of full disclosure to the proposed counsellor, the court found that the new plan, combined with the surety's commitment and the accused's time in custody, barely satisfied the secondary grounds for release.

The application for bail review was granted.

In a murder trial, the defendants brought motions regarding the admissibility of evidence.

Philip Fitzpatrick sought to admit antemortem statements by the deceased concerning a dispute over counterfeit money and guns, arguing relevance to witness credibility and narrative.

Evan Wright sought to cross-examine a witness on the deceased's drug trafficking activities, also arguing narrative.

The Crown opposed both.

The court dismissed the application for antemortem statements under the state of mind exception, finding them not relevant and highly prejudicial, though allowing limited questioning on the deceased being ripped off and taking guns.

The court also dismissed the application to admit evidence of the deceased's drug trafficking, finding it irrelevant and highly prejudicial, noting the jury already had sufficient information about the deceased's background.

The accused, Evan Wright, charged with first-degree murder, brought a Corbett application to exclude his criminal record from evidence at trial, arguing its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.

The court ruled that convictions post-dating the offence are admissible.

It refused to "read down" an aggravated assault conviction but decided to limit cross-examination to only the aggravated assault conviction, excluding two weapon possession convictions.

This decision was based on concerns about propensity reasoning and the potential for imbalance, given the nature of the current charges and the lack of a criminal record for the Crown's main witness.

The plaintiff, Lightbox Enterprises Ltd., moved for interlocutory injunctive orders against the defendant, 2708227 Ontario Inc., concerning their business relationship involving retail cannabis stores.

Lightbox alleged breach of license and service agreements and misuse of confidential information and trademarks ("Dutch Love""Hobo Cannabis"). 2708227 Ontario Inc. counter-claimed, asserting the relationship was a franchise governed by the Arthur Wishart Act and that Lightbox failed to provide disclosure, entitling 2708227 Ontario Inc. to rescind the agreements.

The court dismissed Lightbox's motion for injunctive relief, finding no contractual basis for the primary relief sought, insufficient evidence to establish a strong prima facie case for breach of confidence, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favored the defendant.

This was a motion for default judgment by the Bank of Montreal against a corporate borrower and its principal, who acted as a guarantor, for outstanding debts under three credit facilities.

The court confirmed the amounts owed by the borrower and addressed the guarantor's limited liability under two personal guarantees.

The judge clarified that enforcement costs of the underlying loans were subject to the guarantee caps, while costs of enforcing the guarantees themselves were not.

The court assessed partial indemnity costs for the guarantor's claim and full indemnity costs for the borrower's claim, adjusting the Bank's requested costs due to overreach in its motion.

The defendant, Yin Liang, appealed an Associate Justice's order granting the plaintiff, Suevilia Development Corporation, leave to amend its Statement of Claim to add Ms. Liang's husband, Hanyu Zhao, as a defendant and to plead claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent conveyance.

The appeal court reviewed the Associate Judge's decision on the applicable tests under Rule 26.01 and Rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including issues of non-compensable prejudice, limitation periods, and whether the proposed amendments disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Judge's decision regarding the limitation period or the tenability of the fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent conveyance claims.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident and commenced an action against the driver and owner, which was administratively dismissed for delay.

The plaintiff later commenced a second action against the lessee of the vehicle.

The lessee moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The plaintiff moved to set aside the administrative dismissal of the first action.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding the lessee's identity was not reasonably discoverable until the plaintiff received correspondence from the insurer.

However, the court also dismissed the plaintiff's motion to set aside the administrative dismissal, finding an inordinate and unexplained delay that prejudiced the defendants.

The trial addressed spousal support, retroactive spousal support, pension division, and occupation rent following a 38-year conventional marriage.

The court awarded the Wife indefinite spousal support at the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) mid-range, subject to review upon the Husband's retirement, and a "catch up" amount for past support.

Retroactive spousal support was ordered from fall 2017, based on effective notice and the Wife's emotional means.

The Husband's pension was ordered to be divided as of the date of separation, and his claim for occupation rent was dismissed due to his failure to pay spousal support and contribution to the delay in selling the matrimonial home.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of the respondent mother's motion for independent legal representation for the children.

The applicant father, who successfully opposed the motion, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis ($28,000).

The respondent mother proposed no costs or a significantly lower amount ($6,000).

The court applied established family law costs principles, affirming the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs, and determined that partial indemnity was the appropriate scale.

The court ultimately awarded the father $15,000 in costs, finding his initial request too high and the mother's too low, aiming for a fair, just, reasonable, and proportionate result.

This interim ruling addresses the plaintiff's request to be qualified as an expert witness in the areas of Lyme disease diagnosis and treatment, in the context of summary judgment motions.

The plaintiff, who is self-represented and a party to the action, sought to rely on his self-prepared 'Beazley Reports' as expert evidence.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's request, finding that as a party with a direct financial interest and an advocate, he was unable or unwilling to provide fair, objective, and non-partisan opinion evidence, which is a threshold requirement for expert qualification.

The court also found that the 'Beazley Reports' themselves did not constitute expert reports.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a successful motion by a Judgment Creditor to enforce two notices of garnishment against funds held by Renaud Law on behalf of two Debtors.

The Judgment Creditor sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis.

One Debtor requested deferral of the costs decision pending a motion to set aside the default judgment.

The court found the garnishment motion necessary and complex due to issues raised by the Debtors.

It declined to defer the costs decision, noting the delay by the Debtors in challenging the default judgment.

The court awarded the Judgment Creditor costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding the amount fair and reasonable.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.

The charge arose from the respondent's driving after she crashed into a condominium lobby window.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred in law by conflating the actus reus and mens rea analyses and failing to conduct a proper risk assessment.

The Superior Court of Justice found no error, holding that the trial judge properly assessed the circumstances and correctly concluded the driving was neither dangerous nor a marked departure from the standard of care.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought to vary a 2015 final order concerning parenting time, holiday sharing, decision-making for extracurricular activities, and child support.

The respondent also sought changes to parenting and holiday schedules.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the child's age and increased parental conflict.

A new week-about parenting schedule was ordered with a specific carve-out for the applicant, and a comprehensive holiday schedule largely proposed by the respondent was adopted.

The applicant was granted final decision-making authority for extracurricular activities, with limitations, and the respondent was ordered to contribute to past and future special expenses.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding income disparity, ordering prospective set-off child support from the respondent, but denied retroactive child support, considering the D.B.S. factors and the initial income parity.

The Crown brought an application to designate the respondent a Dangerous Offender following his conviction for aggravated assault.

The respondent had brutally attacked the victim with a hammer, causing catastrophic and permanent injuries.

The court reviewed the respondent's extensive criminal record, history of substance abuse, and diagnoses of antisocial personality disorder and delusional disorder.

Applying the two-stage framework, the court found the respondent met the criteria for a Dangerous Offender designation due to his intractable pattern of violent behaviour.

Concluding there was no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public, the court imposed an indeterminate penitentiary sentence.

In a first-degree murder trial, the defence brought a motion for a mistrial, alleging numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct during the Crown's closing address to the jury.

The alleged errors included misstating evidence, introducing unelicited evidence, mocking defence counsel and witnesses, and improperly commenting on the burden of proof.

The court reviewed each alleged impropriety, finding some instances of improper conduct but concluding that, individually or cumulatively, they did not fatally wound the trial process or deprive the accused of a fair trial to the extent that a mistrial was warranted.

The motion was dismissed, with the court indicating that corrective instructions would be given to the jury.

Defence counsel for Mr. Fitzpatrick and Mr. Wright brought a motion for a mistrial, alleging that Crown counsel adduced impermissible bad character evidence ("snitches get stitches") during re-examination of a witness, thereby wounding trial fairness.

The Crown argued the re-examination was appropriate given the cross-examination.

The court denied the motion, finding that while the defence was prejudiced by a prior ruling limiting cross-examination on a witness's inconsistent statements, this could be remedied by allowing further cross-examination.

The court concluded that the "snitches get stitches" evidence, while potentially prejudicial, did not rise to the level requiring a mistrial, especially with proper jury instructions, and did not constitute a "catastrophic" defect to trial fairness.

Philip Fitzpatrick, jointly charged with murder, brought a K.G.B. application to admit two police statements made by his mother, Cheryl Hall, for the truth of their contents regarding the shooter's identity.

The Crown was not opposed if the statements were edited and Ms. Hall could be cross-examined.

The court applied the principled exception to the hearsay rule, finding necessity due to Ms. Hall's recantation/unwillingness to adopt her prior statements, and threshold reliability due to procedural safeguards (availability for cross-examination, videotaping) and circumstantial guarantees (statements made hours after shooting, no influence, no leading questions, no motive to lie).

The court ruled the statements admissible for their truth, to be shown to the jury in their entirety with appropriate edits, and permitted the Crown to cross-examine Ms. Hall on the identification and her state of mind.

The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRAO) applied for an order under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to declare Mohan Joy Kurian a vexatious litigant and prohibit him from commencing further proceedings without leave.

The application stemmed from Kurian's six-year campaign of persistent, groundless litigation and complaints against his former credit union, Alterna Savings and Credit Union/Quintefirst Credit Union (Intervenor), and FSRAO, including multiple dismissed lawsuits and unpaid costs.

The court found Kurian's conduct to be vexatious, marked by abuse of process, harassment, and disrespect for the administration of justice, and granted the order, with the exception of one ongoing action against a former business partner.

Costs were awarded to FSRAO and Alterna.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for an injunction to prevent the defendants from obstructing their access to Lake Erie, asserting rights under the Canadian Navigable Waters Act (CNWA) and common law riparian rights.

They also claimed damages for trespass.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief, finding they lacked standing to enforce the CNWA and that their property did not directly abut Lake Erie in its natural low-water state.

However, the court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the trespass claim, awarding $5,000 in damages for the unauthorized clearing of trees and vegetation on their land by the defendants.

The defendants' counterclaim for trespass was not adjudicated due to procedural issues.