Superior Court of Justice

The defendant brought a motion to strike the self-represented plaintiff's third iteration of a statement of claim.

The plaintiff alleged various causes of action including fraud, breach of contract, and negligence arising from his use of the defendant's order execution-only investment platform.

The court found the 124-page claim to be incomprehensible, devoid of material facts, and replete with evidence and legal maxims.

Concluding that the plaintiff was incapable of drafting a compliant pleading despite multiple opportunities, the court struck the claim without leave to amend and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendant.

The Crown brought an application to admit the accused's prior convictions for sexual assault as similar fact evidence in their upcoming trial for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman.

The Crown argued the prior convictions, which also involved sexual assaults on unconscious women, were highly probative of identity and intention.

The accused opposed, arguing the acts were dissimilar and the evidence was highly prejudicial.

The court allowed the application, finding that the prior convictions went beyond showing general disposition and that their probative value outweighed the potential for reasoning prejudice.

Following the applicant's success on an application regarding the end date of a contract, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found that the respondent's conduct, which included taking inconsistent positions throughout the dispute and failing to meaningfully engage in settlement negotiations, warranted an elevated costs award.

The court fixed the applicant's costs on a substantial indemnity scale in the amount of $99,855.00.

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving, over 80, flight from police, and stunt driving, as well as his sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in dismissing his s. 10(b) Charter application by failing to find a breach when police did not allow him direct access to his phone to call a third party to obtain a lawyer's contact information.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the conviction appeal, holding that police are not constitutionally required to give a detainee direct access to a phone to call a third party.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the trial judge provided adequate notice before imposing a harsher sentence than the Crown requested and that the 150-day total sentence was not demonstrably unfit.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction and custodial sentence for domestic assault, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and claiming he was guaranteed a non-custodial result.

The court rejected the appellant's evidence, finding that his trial counsel acted competently, obtained written instructions, and dealt patiently with a difficult client.

The court noted the appellant's lack of insight and accountability, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the sentence.

The applicant brought a statutory guardianship application regarding his mother, which was rendered moot when she died before adjudication.

The applicant sought costs of the application.

The court found that the application had conferred a benefit on the mother prior to her death by prompting the parties to implement care and personal support worker agreements.

The court awarded the applicant fixed costs of $12,000 payable from the mother's estate, significantly reducing the amount claimed as the costs incurred after her death were unreasonable.

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder after shooting a stranger in an LCBO parking lot following a verbal dispute over social distancing.

The Crown sought a 15-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 10 to 12 years.

The court considered the aggravating factors, including the public nature of the shooting and the devastating impact on the victim's family, alongside mitigating factors such as the offender's youth, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism.

The court imposed a life sentence with a 14-year period of parole ineligibility, along with mandatory weapons prohibition, DNA, and non-communication orders.

During a jury trial for second-degree murder and firearms offences arising from a shootout at a restaurant, the court ruled on the admissibility of the criminal records and police occurrence reports of one of the co-accused, the deceased, and the other co-accused.

The court excluded the co-accused's criminal record, finding its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its limited probative value regarding credibility and self-defence.

The court admitted the deceased's criminal record and related occurrence reports, as they were relevant to the accused's claim of self-defence and their probative value was not substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect.

The court excluded double hearsay occurrence reports and unproven police synopses relating to the accused.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder after fatally stabbing his twin sister's boyfriend in the abdomen following a physical altercation.

The accused claimed self-defence, defence of his sister, and accident, arguing he only intended to intimidate the victim.

The court rejected these defences, finding the accused acted out of anger and vengeance rather than a genuine belief of a threat.

However, considering the accused's youth, intoxication, and extreme anger, the court found a reasonable doubt as to whether he possessed the specific intent for murder.

The accused was acquitted of murder but found guilty of manslaughter.

The applicant creditor sought to allocate a $5 million payment received from the respondent debtor to various outstanding debts, including legal fees and a late information disclosure fee, rather than to a consent judgment.

The court held that the debtor failed to plainly and irrevocably allocate the payment at the time it was made, entitling the creditor to allocate the funds.

However, the court found that the $5,000 per day late disclosure fee was an extravagant and unconscionable penalty, and therefore void.

The court also declined to refer the creditor's legal fees to assessment, finding them reasonable and noting the debtor's failure to review the fee summaries in good faith.

The Monitor in a liquidating CCAA proceeding sought approval of its fees, a distribution to unsecured creditors, an extension of the stay of proceedings, and an order exempting it from tax and withholding obligations under various federal and provincial statutes.

The court approved the fees, distribution, and stay extension.

However, the court declined to grant the tax exemptions, finding no basis in law or evidence to declare that the Monitor is not a 'representative' or is not 'distributing' funds under the tax statutes, especially without notice to the relevant taxation authorities.

The accused, a doctor, was charged with two counts of sexual assault and two counts of uttering threats against a former patient and friend.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the complainant's evidence.

The defence argued the complainant had a motive to fabricate the allegations, pointing to evidence that she extorted the accused for money and threatened to report him if he stopped paying.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony regarding the alleged assaults, threats, and cash payments.

Concluding that the complainant's evidence lacked credibility and reliability, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of all charges.

The offender was convicted by a jury of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death after running a red light at 80 km/h and striking another vehicle, killing a 75-year-old passenger.

The Crown sought three years' imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the offender's prolonged inattention, aggressive driving, and prior speeding record, balanced against her prosocial background, remorse, and lack of criminal record.

The court imposed a sentence of two years' imprisonment, a 15-year driving prohibition, and a non-communication order.

The offender was convicted of break and enter and armed robbery after a home invasion targeting a sex worker.

The Crown sought a sentence of 8 years and a Long-Term Offender (LTO) designation.

The court sentenced the offender to 7 years' imprisonment, granting 6.5 years of enhanced credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, leaving 6 months to serve.

The court found the offender met the criteria for an LTO designation due to a substantial risk of violent reoffending and a reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community, imposing a 7-year long-term supervision order.

The plaintiff appealed an associate judge's order compelling him to answer questions refused on discovery based on solicitor-client privilege.

The plaintiff sued his real estate agents for negligence in a real estate transaction, and in a companion action, sued his real estate solicitor for negligent advice regarding the same transaction.

The court found that by voluntarily putting his reliance on his solicitor's advice in issue in the companion action, the plaintiff had impliedly waived privilege.

Fairness and consistency required that the waiver extend to the present action, as the plaintiff's state of mind and reliance were central to both proceedings, which were to be tried together.

The appeal was dismissed.

In a pre-trial criminal ruling on sexual offence charges involving a complainant who was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse, the court admitted the complainant’s video-recorded police statement under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code, subject to adoption at trial.

The court held that reasonableness under s. 715.1 is a contextual inquiry, not a strict calculation of elapsed time, and found the delayed disclosure explicable given the familial relationship, the complainant’s age, and her anxiety.

The court ordered limited redactions for conceded oath-helping passages but declined to remove chronology-related passages said to be prior consistent statements, holding any prejudice could be addressed by jury instruction.

The court also settled race-bias challenge for cause questions and granted the Crown’s s. 486.2 application for CCTV testimony.

The accused, a police officer, was charged with assault with a weapon, sexual assault, assault, and uttering death threats against his spouse and unborn baby.

During the trial, the Crown elected to call no further evidence mid-way through the cross-examination of the complainant.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be entirely unreliable due to numerous inconsistencies, omissions to authorities, and admissions of lying under oath.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of human trafficking, receiving a material benefit from human trafficking, and related offences.

The Crown sought a seven-year custodial sentence, while the offender sought a conditional sentence, relying on his youth, minor record, and 5.5 years of restrictive bail conditions.

The court found that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the need for denunciation and deterrence.

After weighing the aggravating factors against the mitigating factors, including the restrictive bail conditions and harsh pre-sentence custody, the court imposed a sentence of four years imprisonment, less 36 days credit for pre-sentence custody.

The plaintiff lien claimant and the defendant first mortgagee brought cross-motions to determine priority between the mortgage and the construction lien.

The court held that the mortgage was taken solely to finance the acquisition of the land, not to secure the financing of an improvement, and therefore had full priority as a prior mortgage under s. 78(3) of the Construction Act.

The court also held that the mortgagee's unilateral deletion of the plaintiff's claim for lien from title under s. 75 of the Land Titles Act was invalid, as it circumvented the specific discharge procedures in the Construction Act.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing her action for delay under Rule 48.14.

The action, which alleged fraud and conspiracy against a private lender and his lawyer regarding a mortgage enforcement, had been dormant for nearly five years after the plaintiff's lawyer was removed from the record.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay, failed to prove she always intended to prosecute the action, delayed in bringing the motion to set aside, and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice to the defendants, whose witnesses had suffered memory loss.