Superior Court of Justice

Following a finding of guilt for robbery and firearm offences, the self-represented accused brought an abuse of process motion alleging that police stole $23,000 in cash from his home during the execution of a search warrant.

The court bifurcated the motion to first determine the factual issue of whether the theft occurred.

The court found the evidence of the accused and his common-law wife to be vague, inconsistent, and illogical.

The accused failed to meet his burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the police stole the money.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant, who was found guilty of human trafficking offences, applied for a stay of proceedings alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay was approximately 44 months.

The court deducted periods of defence delay, including waived delay and delay caused by the defence's scheduling requests, as well as a discrete event involving a scheduling error for discovery.

After these deductions, the net delay was approximately 28 months, which fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

Sentencing for historical child sexual offences committed by a teacher against five student complainants over multiple school years.

The court held that, following the jury verdicts, it was open to accept the complainants’ evidence in full rather than make minimum findings, and applied contemporary post-Friesen sentencing principles to historical offences.

A conditional sentence order was rejected because denunciation and deterrence predominated, the offences involved multiple vulnerable child victims and a serious breach of trust, and there was no evidence that custodial medical care would be inadequate.

The offender’s advanced age, health issues, passage of time, and pro-social life justified reduction from the Crown’s proposed global sentence on totality grounds, resulting in 65 months’ imprisonment.

Retrospective s. 109 and s. 161 orders were refused under s. 11(i) of the Charter, while DNA, SOIRA, and a custodial no-contact order were imposed.

The offender, an airport baggage handler, was found guilty by a jury of importing and possessing for the purpose of trafficking nine kilograms of cocaine and importing cannabis.

The Crown sought a 10-year sentence due to the significant breach of trust, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or six to seven years, citing the offender's experience of anti-Black racism and collateral immigration consequences.

The court found that the offender's status as a 'corrupt insider' warranted a sentence above the usual range for couriers.

After weighing the mitigating factors, including the offender's good character and the connection between his offending and anti-Black racism, the court imposed a global sentence of nine years' imprisonment.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter following the brutal killing of an 88-year-old woman during a home invasion.

The offender was in a state of extreme intoxication from methamphetamine at the time of the offence, raising potential automatism defences that led to the Crown accepting a plea to manslaughter instead of first-degree murder.

The court accepted a joint submission and sentenced the offender to 15 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for violence against vulnerable elderly victims.

The applicant father brought an interim motion seeking an order requiring the respondent mother to return with their two children to St. Thomas, Ontario, after she surreptitiously moved them to Woodstock.

The court analyzed whether the move constituted a 'relocation' or a 'change in residence' under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found the move was a change in residence, not a relocation, as the increased driving time did not significantly impact the father's relationship with the children.

However, applying the best interests of the child test, the court found the mother's unilateral self-help move disrupted the status quo and was not in the children's best interests.

The mother was ordered to return the children to St. Thomas or within a 25-minute drive of the father's residence.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to deliver a supplemental expert report after cross-examinations had been completed for an upcoming summary judgment motion.

The plaintiffs discovered alleged structural defects in a sunroom addition after delivering their responding motion record but before cross-examinations.

The court applied the four-part test for granting leave, finding the evidence relevant, responsive to matters raised on cross-examination, and not causing non-compensable prejudice.

The court granted leave to file the supplemental report and dismissed the plaintiffs' request to strike a statement produced by the defendants in response to an undertaking.

The applicant, sought for extradition to the United States on charges related to money laundering for a violent drug trafficking organization, applied for a publication ban on the identities and identifying information of his proposed sureties prior to his bail hearing.

The Attorney General opposed the ban on names, occupations, and relationships to the accused, arguing it infringed the open court principle.

The court applied the Sherman Estate test and found that the applicant established a serious risk to the safety of the sureties and the public interest in ensuring safe participation in the justice system.

The court granted the publication ban, subject to review upon the conclusion of the bail hearing.

Following a family law trial regarding parenting time and parental alienation, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found that success was divided, as the applicant father contributed to the children's estrangement, but the respondent mother was mainly responsible due to her alienating actions and bad faith conduct in repeatedly failing to comply with court orders.

The court awarded the applicant full recovery costs, reduced by 33% to account for the divided success, fixing the costs payable by the respondent at $81,000.

The plaintiff was successful in opposing a motion brought by the defendants, which the court previously dismissed as unnecessary and obstructive to the discovery process.

The plaintiff sought costs ranging from $18,435.80 on a partial indemnity scale to $26,366.82 on a full indemnity scale.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, noting the defendants' obstructive conduct but also acknowledging that the plaintiff did not put its best foot forward regarding its productions.

The court fixed costs at $12,500 payable by the defendants to the plaintiff.

Following a traffic stop for expired registration, police extended the detention and purported to rely on the Cannabis Control Act to question the accused about marijuana in the vehicle and to search the occupants and vehicle.

The court held that the continued detention was arbitrary, that police used the Cannabis Control Act as a pretext for a broader criminal investigation, and that they breached ss. 10(a) and 10(b) by failing to promptly explain the reason for the continued detention and advise of the right to counsel before eliciting incriminating information.

Because the search grounds were obtained through those breaches, the warrantless searches also violated s. 8.

Applying Grant, the court excluded all statements and physical evidence obtained during the stop.

The separate application alleging ss. 7 and 12 breaches arising from custodial treatment was dismissed, and the accused was acquitted on all counts.

The defendants sought costs after successfully moving to strike portions of the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The court noted that the motion was essentially a demand for particulars and that the plaintiffs' pleadings were defective.

However, the court criticized the high costs incurred by both sides for a motion that could have been resolved through cooperation.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs in the cause on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $20,000.

The respondent was successful at a Focussed Hearing regarding the validity of a Post Nuptial Agreement and sought full indemnity costs of $144,762.72, including costs for prior steps.

The applicant argued for no costs or reduced costs, and requested a stay of enforcement pending her appeal.

The court declined to award costs for prior conferences, focusing only on the Focussed Hearing.

Finding the respondent's claimed fees on the higher side and no basis for full indemnity, the court awarded the respondent costs of $37,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The court also stayed enforcement of the costs award until the appeal is concluded.

The respondent estate trustee moved to dismiss the applicant's dependent's relief application on the grounds of res judicata, lack of standing, and being statute-barred.

The applicant, a former casual girlfriend of the deceased, had previously litigated and lost her dependent's relief claims and owed over $40,000 in unpaid costs.

The court dismissed the application, finding it was an abuse of process and statute-barred.

Due to the applicant's abusive and racist communications towards opposing counsel, the court imposed strict conditions on her ability to commence future proceedings, including requiring leave and payment of all outstanding costs.

The defendant insurer, Dominion, sought permission at a case conference to bring a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's underinsured motorist claim.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the motion was premature and involved significant credibility and damages issues.

The court dismissed the request to schedule the motion, finding that a partial summary judgment posed a significant risk of inconsistent findings at trial, involved credibility issues regarding the plaintiff's injuries, and would not be efficient given the incomplete evidentiary record.

The applicant daughter and the respondent father were engaged in a property dispute over a condominium in Milton.

The matter proceeded through triage court, cross-examinations, and a judicial pretrial conference within approximately twelve months of the notice of application being issued.

The parties reached a full and final settlement on the eve of the hearing, and the court issued a consent judgment in accordance with the draft provided.

The court commended the parties and counsel for their professionalism, expeditious conduct, and respect for judicial resources.

The offender was found in breach of his conditional sentence order (CSO) after being arrested at a hotel while subject to house arrest.

The court first determined that the CSO began running when the offender was released from custody on statutory release, even though his warrant of committal had not technically expired.

Finding the breach to be flagrant and noting the offender's significant criminal record and history of breaching court orders, the court terminated the conditional sentence and directed that the remainder be served in custody.

The plaintiffs requested a remote hearing for a pre-trial conference, citing travel distance, winter driving conditions, and counsel's childcare arrangements.

The court denied the request, noting that the presumptive mode of hearing for pre-trial conferences is in-person to facilitate settlement, and that the reasons provided were not clear and compelling.

However, the court reduced the conference duration to one hour and adjusted the start time to accommodate travel and childcare.

The court also offered the parties the option of a 30-minute remote case conference focused solely on trial management if they agreed to forgo settlement discussions.

The applicant father brought a Motion to Change a final order regarding child support after the parties' two children moved primarily into his care.

The respondent mother, who is self-employed, failed to pay child support, contribute to section 7 expenses, or provide required financial disclosure.

The court imputed the mother's income at $49,000 based on a vocational assessment and ordered her to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, as well as her proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

The court also ordered the mother to obtain life insurance to secure her support obligations, imposed a $2,000 penalty for her breach of disclosure orders, and awarded the father $14,000 in costs.

The two accused were charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder.

They brought an application alleging a breach of their s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The trial was delayed well past the 30-month presumptive ceiling, largely due to the late disclosure of cell phone data extracted by police years earlier but withheld on the mistaken belief it was irrelevant.

The court found the delay exceeded the ceiling even after deducting defence delay and discrete exceptional events.

The Crown failed to justify the delay, as the case was not particularly complex and the late disclosure was a deliberate decision rather than an inadvertent oversight.

The application was granted and a stay of proceedings was ordered.