Superior Court of Justice

The young person, charged with second-degree murder, brought a pre-trial application for directions regarding jury selection procedures.

The case had attracted significant pretrial publicity.

The court established a comprehensive jury selection protocol, including liberal pre-screening, specific anti-bias instructions, and a focused challenge for cause process to address potential partiality from media exposure.

The trial judge determined she would ask the challenge questions and adjudicate the challenges individually with other prospective jurors excluded.

The defendant union requested that the claim against it be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found that the statement of claim contained no legally cognizable cause of action against the union, as the allegations were directed almost entirely at the employer.

The court dismissed the claim against the union but granted the plaintiff liberty to take steps to amend the statement of claim.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent mother brought a motion seeking extensive financial disclosure from the applicant father to calculate his income for child support purposes.

The father, who had recently started his own law firm, argued the requests were disproportionate and premature.

The court emphasized the importance of timely income disclosure but agreed that some of the mother's requests were overreaching.

The court granted a temporary order requiring the father to provide a narrowed scope of disclosure, balancing the need for financial transparency with the principle of proportionality.

The applicant, McEwan Enterprises Inc., sought an Amended and Restated Initial Order at a comeback hearing in its CCAA proceedings to extend the stay period and increase the administration and directors' charges.

A creditor opposed the motion, arguing the applicant should not be allowed to continue without a court-approved marketing and sale process and raising concerns about a proposed transaction.

The court granted the requested relief to allow the applicant to continue operations, finding the creditor's concerns raised arguable issues that were more properly addressed at an upcoming motion to approve the proposed transaction.

The Town of Aurora was entirely successful on a contempt motion against the self-represented plaintiff.

The Town sought costs of $16,200.98 on a full indemnity basis.

The court awarded costs of $12,000 on a full indemnity basis, noting the plaintiff's prior involvement in contempt motions and the need to deter contemptuous behaviour.

The court also set a schedule for the plaintiff's motion to add parties.

The accused was found guilty of multiple offences, including robbery, aggravated assault, and sexual assault with a weapon, arising from a violent home invasion, as well as firearms offences.

The 69-year-old victim suffered severe physical and emotional trauma.

The court weighed the aggravating factors, including the gratuitous violence and use of a firearm, against mitigating factors such as harsh presentence custody conditions during the pandemic.

A global sentence of 16 years' imprisonment was imposed, less 39 months of enhanced credit for presentence custody.

The court issued a costs endorsement following motions regarding supervised parenting time.

The applicants, the mother and maternal grandmothers, were largely successful in their request to have family members supervise contact with the child, rather than a professional service.

The respondent father took an unreasonable position in insisting on professional supervision and arbitrarily cutting off contact with the grandmothers.

The court awarded costs of $8,500 to the mother and $10,000 to the grandmothers, payable by the father.

In a first-degree murder trial, the Crown brought an application to admit a compilation of surveillance video recordings.

The compilation combined footage from the scene of the shooting and a subsequent location, and included enhancements such as spotlights and magnifiers.

The defence objected, arguing the compilation and enhancements could unduly influence the jury.

The court held that the compilation and spotlight enhancements were admissible, as they were substantially accurate and assisted the trier of fact without causing prejudice.

The use of a magnifier on the accused's clothing was excluded pending further evidence on whether it altered the image.

The moving party brought a motion to remove the responding party's counsel due to a prior retainer.

The responding party consented to the order on the day the motion was to be heard.

The court found that the motion was necessary and that substantial indemnity costs would normally follow, but reduced the claimed amount on the basis of proportionality, fixing costs at $3,500 plus HST and disbursements.

The third parties brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to disclose their real estate lawyer's files relating to the purchase of their property.

The plaintiffs opposed, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that the plaintiffs' former counsel had previously undertaken to produce the files and had thereby waived any claim to privilege.

The motion was granted and the plaintiffs were ordered to produce the files.

The applicants were successful on a motion regarding the procedure for DNA testing to determine if the respondent's child was the biological child of the deceased.

The applicants sought costs of $17,485.82 on a partial and substantial indemnity basis.

The court found the applicants were the successful parties and their offer to settle was reasonable, but concluded the costs claimed were excessive given the narrow issue and the modest amount in dispute ($62,841.54).

The court fixed the applicants' costs at $7,213 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The defendants brought a motion to discharge a claim for lien and vacate a certificate of action, arguing the plaintiff was an owner, not a contractor, under the Construction Act.

The plaintiff claimed he was a contractor who provided labour and materials for a house construction.

The court found that the plaintiff and defendants had a partnership agreement to build and sell the house for profit, making the plaintiff an owner.

As an owner cannot lien their own property, the motion was granted, and the claim for lien was discharged.

The Crown sought to admit statements made by the accused during a police interview following his arrest for child pornography offences.

The accused argued the statements were involuntary and that his rights under sections 7 and 10(b) of the Charter were breached, particularly when police asked for his cell phone password without restating his right to counsel.

The court found the statements were voluntary, noting the accused had an operating mind and was not subjected to oppressive conditions or inducements.

The court also held that asking for a cell phone password in these circumstances was a routine question that did not require a further opportunity to consult counsel.

The statements were ruled admissible.

The respondent mother brought a motion at the opening of a family law trial to determine the admissibility of evidence regarding the applicant father's professional misconduct as a police officer.

The father argued that the Police Services Act created an absolute privilege over all information related to his disciplinary proceedings.

The court held that while documents prepared for the disciplinary process and testimony from those involved are inadmissible and non-compellable, the underlying facts of the misconduct, the charges, and the outcome are provable facts at trial.

The court also rejected arguments that the father had waived privilege or that the Divorce Act paramountcy overrode the provincial statute.

The accused, a young Black man, sought release from custody through a combined 90-day detention review and a bail review.

He was facing charges including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and breaching a previous release order by deliberately evading GPS monitoring.

The court found that while the justice of the peace erred in law by failing to explicitly consider the accused's status as a member of a vulnerable population under s. 493.2 of the Criminal Code, the error did not affect the outcome given the egregious nature of the breach and the inadequacy of the proposed release plan.

The court also rejected the accused's argument for release based on fear of COVID-19, noting his refusal to be vaccinated.

The application for release was dismissed and continued detention was found justified.

The father brought a motion to change a consent final order to seek primary residence and sole decision-making for the parties' younger child, alleging the mother had alienated the children from him.

The mother opposed the motion and sought sole decision-making.

The court held a voir dire and admitted the children's out-of-court statements to an OCL clinician and a reunification therapist under the principled approach to hearsay and the state of mind exception, rejecting a claim of case-by-case therapy privilege.

The court found no parental alienation by the mother.

The court dismissed the father's motion and granted the mother sole decision-making and primary residence, finding that the father had fabricated email evidence to mislead the court and that the child's strong preference was to reside with the mother and have parenting time at her discretion.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for defamation over anonymous reviews posted by a former employee on Glassdoor's website.

Glassdoor brought a motion to dismiss the action under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, arguing the reviews were expressions on a matter of public interest.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the reviews regarding workplace conditions, salaries, and management style constituted a private grievance between a former employee and employer, rather than a matter of public interest.

During a first-degree murder trial, the Crown brought a mid-trial motion to admit recently disclosed wiretap intercepts as post-offence conduct.

The intercepts allegedly captured the accused attempting to influence co-accused and witnesses to testify under the protection of the Canada Evidence Act.

The court denied the motion, finding that while the evidence had probative value regarding consciousness of guilt, it was outweighed by significant prejudicial effects, including the need for complex jury instructions on the co-conspirator hearsay exception, the Canada Evidence Act, solicitor-client privilege, and bad character reasoning.

The parties resolved all issues except parenting time and child support for their six-year-old child.

The respondent sought equal parenting time on a 2/2/3 schedule, while the applicant opposed, citing concerns about after-school care and the respondent's support network.

The court found that both parents were capable and loving, and that transitioning to equal parenting time was in the child's best interests.

The court ordered a 2/2/3 shared parenting schedule.

The court also rejected the applicant's argument that the respondent was intentionally underemployed, finding his reduced hours accommodated his parenting time.

The applicant was ordered to pay $532 per month in child support based on the shared parenting arrangement.

The applicant and respondents both provided professional liability insurance to a nurse facing a disciplinary complaint from the College of Nurses of Ontario.

Both insurers acknowledged a duty to defend.

The applicant sought an order that the respondents share the defence costs equally, arguing their 'other insurance' clauses were irreconcilable.

The court found that the 'other insurance' clause in the applicant's policy only applied to claims for compensatory damages ('professional incidents'), not disciplinary complaints.

Therefore, the clauses could be read together, making the applicant the primary insurer for the disciplinary complaint.

The application was dismissed.