Superior Court of Justice

The offender, a 35-year-old first-time offender and primary caregiver to her son, was found guilty by a jury of possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of cannabis for the purpose of selling.

The police found over 1 kg of cocaine in her backpack and additional cocaine and fentanyl concealed in her body.

The Crown sought an 8-year sentence, while the defence proposed 3 to 5 years.

The court weighed the significant aggravating factors of the quantity and nature of the drugs against mitigating factors including her lack of a criminal record, remorse, and family circumstances.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 5 years' imprisonment.

The accused was the victim of a drive-by shooting and sought refuge in his uncle's vehicle.

Police responded to a 911 call and administered first aid in a public parking lot.

The uncle informed police that the accused had brought a bag into the vehicle, which police searched and found to contain a loaded handgun and significant quantities of fentanyl, cocaine, and oxycodone.

The accused challenged the admissibility of the evidence, alleging violations of his rights under ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court dismissed the Charter applications, finding the police acted properly as first responders and the accused lacked standing to challenge the search.

On the trial proper, the court rejected the accused's testimony and found him guilty of all drug and firearm offences based on circumstantial evidence establishing knowledge and control.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to reinstate him as president and co-director of a corporation following a dispute over a share purchase agreement.

The plaintiff had previously signed an irrevocable resignation as part of a settlement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case to resile from his resignation, and noted he had adequate remedies under the Business Corporations Act.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, seeking to impute an annual income of $390,028.78 to the respondent based on his rental properties in Toronto and Brazil.

The respondent argued his income was $93,376 and that he was already meeting the applicant's needs by providing rent-free accommodation and a monthly stipend.

The court imputed an income of $215,154 to the respondent based on his legal ownership of the properties, rejecting his claims of unwritten trust agreements with family members.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $1,822 per month in table child support, 60% of section 7 expenses, and $5,550 per month in temporary spousal support, with a $2,165 deduction while the applicant continues to live rent-free in his property.

Following a judge-alone trial, the court convicted the accused of sexual assault, trafficking in persons, receiving a material benefit from trafficking, procuring, and advertising sexual services.

The case turned largely on the credibility and reliability of the complainant, whose evidence the court accepted on the core allegations despite extensive impeachment on prior inconsistent statements, admitted lies to police on collateral matters, significant addiction issues, and drug use during testimony.

The court found that the accused exploited the complainant’s acute personal vulnerability, used deception and dependency, controlled transportation, advertising, communications, and finances, and compelled the provision of sexual services in Ontario and Quebec.

Cell phone records, escort advertisements, and other admitted evidence materially corroborated the complainant’s account.

The accused was acquitted on the imitation-handgun count.

Multiple motions were brought in a long-running dispute over an on-reserve business partnership between a father and son.

The father sought his share of a bankruptcy dividend from his son's estate, arguing it was protected from seizure by his former lawyer's solicitor's lien and a receivership order under s. 89 of the Indian Act.

The court held that the bankruptcy dividend, held off-reserve by the Trustee, was not protected by s. 89.

The court confirmed the validity of the former lawyer's solicitor's lien, finding it attached to the father's off-reserve assets, including the dividend once transferred to the Receiver.

The court approved the Receiver's fees, which took priority over the solicitor's lien, and authorized the transfer of the dividend to the Receiver for distribution.

The applicant and respondent were common-law partners for approximately 13 years who separated in June 2015.

Shortly after separation, the respondent sold the assets of his patient transfer business for over $5,000,000.

The applicant sought spousal support and a share of the sale proceeds.

The proprietary claims were resolved on consent for $1,220,000.

At trial, the court determined the applicant's continuing entitlement to spousal support on a primarily non-compensatory basis, finding the respondent's income ranged from $257,000 to $517,000 between 2020 and 2023.

The court rejected the applicant's claim that the respondent's conduct constituted a gross repudiation of the relationship under s. 33(10) of the Family Law Act.

Ongoing spousal support was fixed at $5,079 per month, with retroactive adjustments for 2020-2024, terminating June 30, 2027.

The applicant brought a motion seeking the release of her remaining share of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home, an advance equalization payment of $250,000 from the respondent's share, and retroactive section 7 expenses.

The court granted the release of the applicant's share of the proceeds, finding no basis to preserve the funds under section 12 of the Family Law Act.

However, the court dismissed the request for an advance equalization payment, concluding there was insufficient certainty that the applicant would ultimately be entitled to an equalization payment of at least $250,000.

The claim for retroactive section 7 expenses was also dismissed as premature due to unresolved factual issues.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for injunctive relief regarding alleged systemic mortgage fraud linked to a specific company's sales tactics.

The court continued prior interim orders on consent and granted additional interim relief requiring the defendant to seek court leave before enforcing any residential mortgages originated by the implicated company.

The court also ordered the defendant to notify mortgagors of legal assistance options upon seeking enforcement.

The issue of whether defense counsel must be removed from the record for being a potential witness was adjourned to a case conference.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment on a defaulted mortgage.

The self-represented defendants failed to attend the hearing despite multiple notices.

The court found the plaintiff established a prima facie case of default on the renewed mortgage.

The defendants' unparticularized defenses of non est factum, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unconscionability were dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff for the outstanding debt of $946,408.35, plus costs.

The offender was convicted of manslaughter following a group attack on a TTC bus passenger.

The offender punched the victim to the ground twice, preventing his escape, while fully aware that a co-accused possessed and was using a knife to stab the victim.

The court weighed significant mitigating factors, including the offender's troubled upbringing, lack of prior record, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, against the gravity of the unprovoked group attack.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, finding it would not adequately reflect denunciation and deterrence, and imposed a sentence of 2 years plus one day in a federal penitentiary, in addition to 30 months of enhanced pre-sentence custody credit.

The plaintiff was struck by a car while walking home on a highway after a New Year's Eve party.

He sued the driver and later commenced a second action against the OPP and others.

The Crown (HMK) moved for summary judgment, arguing the second action was a nullity for lack of notice under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, and that a third action commenced after proper notice was statute-barred.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the second action as a nullity but dismissed the motion regarding the third action, finding the plaintiff rebutted the presumption of discovery on the date of the accident.

The court also found a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the police owed a private law duty of care to the plaintiff given their knowledge of the party and intoxicated pedestrians on the highway.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary his interim child support obligations, seeking a reduction due to his inability to work for medical reasons.

He also sought relief from garnishment proceedings and orders regarding joint debts.

The court found that a 30% reduction in income due to short-term disability constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court ordered a reduction in interim child support contingent upon the respondent providing confirmation of his receipt of short-term disability benefits.

The court declined to interfere with garnishment proceedings for outstanding legal costs, but noted the applicant's undertaking to cease child support garnishment upon confirmation of the variation.

The parties consented to make equal payments towards a joint line of credit.

The defendants successfully moved to dismiss the plaintiff's ten-year medical negligence action and sought their costs.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented for portions of the litigation, caused significant delays and failed to accept multiple offers to settle.

The defendants sought costs in amounts lower than partial indemnity, recognizing the plaintiff's difficult financial circumstances.

The court further reduced the requested amounts, ordering the plaintiff to pay a total of $270,000 in costs to the defendants.

The defendant brought a motion to rectify the land registry record under section 159 of the Land Titles Act.

The parties are abutting landowners, and the defendant's property requires an easement over the plaintiff's land for access.

The Committee of Adjustment had previously granted a permanent easement as a condition of severing the land, but a temporary one-year easement was mistakenly registered on title following a private agreement between the parties.

The court held that the Certificate of Consent under the Planning Act does not immunize the resulting transfer from rectification where the registered instrument does not match the approved instrument.

The motion was granted, and the title was ordered rectified to reflect a permanent easement.

The applicant, a hedge fund shareholder, brought an urgent application under section 248 of the OBCA seeking to adjourn the respondent corporation's annual general and special meeting of shareholders and to reset the record date.

The applicant alleged the notice was non-compliant with the OBCA and that the board acted oppressively by setting a timeline that effectively prevented shareholders from nominating an alternative slate of directors.

The court found that the respondent was not an "offering corporation" and had met all statutory notice requirements under sections 95(4) and 96(1) of the OBCA.

The court held that the notice procedures followed past practice and did not breach the reasonable expectations of shareholders as established in BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders.

The application was dismissed with costs of $75,000 to the respondent.

Following a 16-day family law trial, the mother sought full recovery costs of $342,216.40 based on her success, an offer to settle, and the father's bad faith.

The court found the mother achieved a more favourable result than her offer regarding parenting and child support, but not property division.

The court also found the father engaged in bad faith conduct during the trial.

The mother was awarded costs of $220,000 on a full recovery basis for the issues on which she was successful.

The court also ordered the father to pay $5,256.33 in outstanding section 7 expenses and dismissed his post-trial motion to rent out the jointly owned property.

The applicant sought leave to commence a derivative action on behalf of the company against the respondent, who allegedly took corporate funds for personal use without authorization.

The parties were the sole directors and equal voting shareholders, resulting in corporate gridlock.

The court found the applicant met the requirements under section 239 of the Canadian Business Corporations Act, including providing proper notice, acting in good faith, and showing the action was in the company's interest.

Leave was granted, and the company was ordered to pay the applicant's reasonable legal fees, with the ultimate amount to be determined at trial.

The self-represented appellant mother and her current spouse appealed a decision striking her claims in an Amended Response to a Motion to Change and dismissing the spouse's non-party motion.

The motion judge had found the mother's claims to be vexatious and res judicata, as they sought to re-litigate child support and section 7 expense issues already determined at trial and upheld on multiple appeals.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's determinations, no apprehension of bias, no Charter breach regarding the spouse's income disclosure, and no jurisdiction to strike the final order under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial involving former intimate partners, the court assessed allegations of sexual assault, property damage, attempted murder, and assault causing bodily harm.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence as internally inconsistent and largely unbelievable, and accepted the complainant's evidence on the January and April 2019 incidents, subject to minor peripheral reservations.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused sexually assaulted the complainant, wilfully damaged her phone, and stabbed her in the breast causing bodily harm.

However, applying the specific-intent requirements for attempted murder and the stabbing factors drawn from the jurisprudence, the court held that the limited force of the single flesh wound left a reasonable doubt about an intent to kill.

The court also found no evidentiary foundation for a defence of advanced intoxication.