Superior Court of Justice

The court considered a motion by the defendant, Echelon Insurance, to compel the plaintiff, 2414840 Ontario Inc. (operating as Cottage Country Family Diner), to answer undertakings and refusals from discovery, including production of the Fitchetts’ personal financial records and the corporation’s entire accountant’s file.

The court held that while the financial health of the corporation and its beneficial owners was relevant to motive in a civil arson claim, the request for the entire accountant’s file was overly broad and amounted to a fishing expedition.

The court also found that the personal financial records of the Fitchetts, as non-parties, could not be compelled through discovery of the corporate plaintiff.

The motion was dismissed.

The Applicants, Apollo Technology Capital Corporation and Nobul Technologies Inc., sought orders regarding the conduct of the upcoming annual general meeting (AGM) of MediPharm Labs Corp., including the appointment of an independent chair, the appointment of TSX Trust as scrutineer, and a declaration regarding the validity of their Dissident Circular.

The Court declined to grant the requested relief, finding no evidence of impropriety or unfairness in the process established by MediPharm’s by-laws and confirming that the issues raised could be addressed after the AGM if necessary.

This decision addresses whether the accused, Peter Nygard, put his character in issue during his evidence-in-chief in a multi-complainant sexual assault trial, and the resulting scope of permitted Crown cross-examination.

The court found that Nygard did put his character in issue by repeatedly asserting he was not the type of person to commit the offences charged.

The ruling details the careful limits placed on the Crown’s cross-examination to avoid undue prejudice, and provides a thorough analysis of the law regarding character evidence and rebuttal in criminal trials.

The respondent mother sought an interim restraining order under the Family Law Act and Children’s Law Reform Act to prevent the applicant father from contacting her and their three children.

The court found no evidentiary basis for such an order, noting that the father’s conduct—attending the children’s activities and attempting contact—did not amount to harassment or endangerment.

The court emphasized the importance of both parents’ involvement in the children’s lives and encouraged communication and counseling, ultimately dismissing the motion for a restraining order.

This decision resolves an application for directions regarding the administration and distribution of the estate of Yvonne Chieffallo.

The court confirms Elisa Chieffallo and Patrick Briggs as estate trustees, orders equal distribution of the residue among the named beneficiaries, and determines that certain assets (the Valley Drive property, Courtyard Crescent property, and a BMO account) do not form part of the estate.

The court also addresses the doctrine of renunciation and intermeddling, the presumption of resulting trust, and the allocation of proceeds from the sale of a vehicle.

This decision concerns the costs of a motion regarding a construction lien.

The Honsbergers sought to discharge or reduce a lien registered by Homes by Hendriks Inc. The court previously reduced the lien but did not vacate it.

The parties could not agree on costs, so submissions were made.

The court awarded the Honsbergers $51,313.32 in costs, finding their offer to settle was reasonable and that their costs were not disproportionate.

The court declined to order costs against the principal of the plaintiff personally.

The court considered an application by Basil Basnandan for a declaration that the purchasers, Michael A. Jones and Delphina Mervin Leblanc, were in breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for a commercial property, and for an order directing the broker, RE/MAX Hallmark Eyking Group Realty, to release the $200,000 deposit to him.

The purchasers failed to complete the transaction due to inability to secure financing.

The court found an anticipatory breach, held that Basnandan was entitled to terminate the agreement, and ordered the deposit released to him.

The court also addressed the commissioning of affidavit exhibits, the law of forfeiture and relief from forfeiture, and awarded partial indemnity costs to Basnandan.

This decision resolves a school placement dispute between separated parents for the 2025/2026 academic year.

The father sought to have the children attend schools in his catchment area, while the mother sought different placements and temporary sole decision-making over education.

The court considered the best interests of each child, their school history, and the stability of their placements.

The court ordered that E. remain at Albert Campbell C.I., I. apply to attend Albert Campbell C.I. (with a fallback to West Hill C.I. if not accepted), and M. attend Grey Owl Junior Public School.

The mother was ordered to pay the father $6,000 in costs.

The applicants, owners of medical clinic units in a commercial condominium, sought the appointment of an administrator for the respondent condominium corporation due to alleged mismanagement, poor financial practices, and failure to comply with the Condominium Act.

The court had previously declined to appoint an administrator, giving the board time to address the issues.

Upon return, the court found insufficient progress, ongoing governance failures, and a lack of urgency in addressing repairs, cleanliness, and fairness among unit owners.

The court appointed an administrator, finding it just, convenient, and in the best interests of the unit owners.

This costs endorsement addresses the Applicant's request for full indemnity costs following a successful urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court reviews the relevant Family Law Rules regarding offers to settle and the factors for awarding costs, including the impact of the Respondent's mental health on her ability to respond to settlement offers.

Ultimately, the court awards partial indemnity costs, deferring payment to be set off against equalization or paid from the Respondent’s share of the matrimonial home.

The court considered whether the Last Will and Testament of Lynn Gloria Gamble, dated January 7, 2021, should be found valid and fully effective despite irregularities in its execution and the absence of the original.

The applicant, Robert Dunham, sought to have the will validated and a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee issued.

The respondent, Clarence Earl Gamble Jr., argued that the will was revoked and requested production of RBC safety deposit box access records.

The court found that the applicant had rebutted the presumption of revocation, validated the will under section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act, and deemed the Windsor Cancer Centre Foundation to be the intended beneficiary.

No costs were awarded.

This decision addresses the division of property, child support, and spousal support following the breakdown of an 18-year marriage between parties who immigrated from Iran to Canada.

The main issue was the treatment of the Mehr (a marriage contract requiring payment of 800 gold coins), its enforceability, and its impact on equalization of net family property.

The court found the Mehr was not paid, ordered an unequal division of property in the husband's favour due to unconscionability, and dismissed the husband's claim for spousal support.

The court also set out child support obligations and addressed credibility issues with both parties.

This costs decision follows the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim after a two-day trial under the simplified procedure.

The defendant, having been entirely successful, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on an offer to settle.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the offer did not justify a higher scale.

Considering the simplicity, short duration, and small amount at issue, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $15,000 plus HST and disbursements, for a total of $19,197, payable within 90 days.

The decision concerns claims by the plaintiffs to set aside various transfers of property, shares, and a trademark by the defendant Pooniah Soundrarajan to family members and related companies, on the basis that they were fraudulent conveyances intended to defeat creditors, and also claims of oppression and unjust enrichment.

The court reviews the evidence for badges of fraud, the timing and context of the transfers, and the adequacy of consideration.

The court grants a non-suit on the claim regarding the transfer of the matrimonial home but finds a prima facie case regarding the share and trademark transfers and oppression, ultimately declaring those transfers void as against the plaintiffs.

The court considered whether the accused, Malachi Venus-Seaforth, had standing to bring a section 8 Charter application to exclude evidence obtained during a search of an apartment in Thunder Bay.

The court reviewed the facts, including the nature of the accused’s presence at the apartment, the degree of control exercised, and the legal principles governing reasonable expectation of privacy.

The court concluded that the accused was, at best, a transient occupant with minimal connection to the apartment and did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The application for standing was dismissed.

The court considered whether the plaintiff's claim for repayment of loans to the defendant was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff and defendant were long-time friends, and the plaintiff loaned the defendant significant sums over several years.

The defendant did not dispute the loans or the amounts but argued the claim was out of time.

The court found the loans were not demand loans, and the limitation period was not suspended by part payments or acknowledgments made after the period expired.

The court concluded the claim was statute-barred and dismissed the action, despite finding the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits.

This decision follows an uncontested trial regarding the residency, decision-making, and parenting time for two children wrongfully removed from Ontario to Lebanon by the respondent, Luna Mounir Andraos.

The court confirms final orders for the children to reside with the applicant, Amin Joseph Barakat, who is granted sole decision-making responsibility, and for the respondent to have only supervised parenting time.

The court also addresses the respondent’s ongoing defiance of previous orders and awards costs for the uncontested trial.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a family law trial.

The applicant, Rona Elizabeth Scott, sought full recovery of her legal costs on the basis that the respondent, Thomas Ryan Scott, acted in bad faith by advancing a baseless claim that the applicant was secretly an internet porn star, which the court found to be "patently ridiculous." The court found that the applicant was successful on virtually every issue, and that the respondent's conduct met the definition of bad faith, warranting a full recovery of costs.

Costs were fixed at $57,800, payable by the respondent forthwith.

This costs endorsement addresses a motion regarding parenting time and the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

The court found that success on the motion was divided: parenting time was reinstated, but the OCL was not appointed.

The court also addressed outstanding child support and ordered immediate payment to the Applicant.

Given the divided success and the circumstances, no costs were awarded.