Superior Court of Justice

The applicants, members of First Nations operating unlicensed cannabis dispensaries on reserves, brought a constitutional challenge against the federal Cannabis Act.

They argued that the licensing requirements infringed their aboriginal, treaty, and inherent rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and UNDRIPA.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no evidentiary basis for an aboriginal right to trade cannabis, as the plant is not indigenous to Canada and was not historically traded by the Anishinaabe.

The court also found no treaty right to sell cannabis, noting that historic treaties did not contemplate such trade and any hypothetical right was extinguished by criminal prohibitions enacted in 1923.

Finally, the court held that the legislation did not violate the applicants' inherent rights under UNDRIPA, as the retail sale of cannabis is not an aspect of indigenous identity.

The offender, an 18-year-old first-time offender, pleaded guilty to possessing a loaded prohibited firearm following a traffic stop.

The Crown sought a 40-month sentence, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Nur, while the defence sought a sentence of two years less a day.

The court emphasized the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, guilty plea, remorse, and the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less a day, which was fully satisfied by enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, and suspended the passing of sentence with one year of probation.

The applicant and respondent, two siblings, are engaged in contentious estate litigation over their late father's estate.

The applicant brought an application under Rule 14.05 seeking, among other things, declarations of resulting trust over a condominium, a RRIF, and a TFSA, and the removal of the respondent as Estate Trustee.

The respondent argued the application was essentially a motion for directions under Rule 75.06 and should be subject to a minimal evidentiary threshold.

The court held that the evidentiary threshold established in will challenge cases does not apply to a Rule 14.05 application that does not challenge the validity of the will.

The court directed the issues to proceed to trial as an action, but dismissed the applicant's premature requests for documentary production and an order prohibiting the respondent from using estate funds for litigation.

The defendant municipality brought a motion under Rule 24.01 to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay.

The action, concerning a municipal sewer construction project, had been set down for trial in 2019 following a consent timetable order.

Subsequent delays were due to institutional factors and a consented adjournment, not the plaintiff's conduct.

Applying the principle that only delay subsequent to a consent order requires explanation, the court found the plaintiff had complied with the timetable and dismissed the motion, ordering the matter to be placed on the trial list.

The applicant mother sought to recognize and enforce a Chinese court order granting her custody of the parties' seven-year-old child and requiring the child's return to China.

The respondent father opposed the application, arguing the child was habitually resident in Ontario and that the Chinese order was procedurally unfair.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the child was not wrongfully removed from China and had become habitually resident in Ontario before the Chinese proceedings commenced.

Consequently, the Chinese court lacked jurisdiction under section 22 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court also found that returning the child to China would cause her serious psychological and emotional harm.

Interim primary parenting and sole decision-making were awarded to the father.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants for US$375,000.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff had resolved the uncertainty in the original request that was previously denied by the registrar.

Pre-judgment interest was awarded at the contracted rate of 21% per annum, and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate of 4.0%.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff in the amount of $2,853.54.

On a bankrupt’s opposed discharge arising almost entirely from family-law costs awards owed to the opposing parent, the court held that the bankruptcy had been used to avoid those judgment debts and that the bankrupt had failed to comply with core disclosure and co-operation duties under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found facts proven under ss. 173(1)(a) and (o), relying on extensive prior family-law findings, contradictions in the bankrupt’s later affidavit evidence, nondisclosure of crowdfunding, gifts, and post-bankruptcy debts, and breaches of the statutory duty of good faith under s. 4.2.

Although the record could have supported outright refusal of discharge, the court concluded that a conditional discharge better balanced rehabilitation, creditor fairness, and the integrity of the insolvency system.

The bankrupt was ordered to pay 50% of proven claims through staged monthly payments and to satisfy additional tax, credit-card, reporting, and record-correction conditions before discharge.

The parties separated after a 12-year common law relationship.

The mother sought an equitable interest in the father's home and pension based on unjust enrichment, as well as child and spousal support.

The father sought to impute income to the mother, arguing she was intentionally under-employed.

The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding no economic integration and that the father had solely funded the property and household expenses.

The court found the mother was intentionally under-employed and imputed an income of $50,000 to her.

The father was ordered to pay set-off child support and indefinite compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support.

The parties separated after a 21-year marriage.

The applicant sought an unequal division of net family property, alleging the respondent recklessly depleted insurance proceeds received after their home burned down.

The court dismissed the claim for unequal division, finding insufficient evidence of reckless depletion.

The court ordered the partition and sale of the matrimonial home, with proceeds to be divided equally after paying joint debts.

The respondent was ordered to pay retroactive child support of $13,212 out of his share of the house proceeds, and ongoing child support based on his current income.

Spousal support was set at zero due to the respondent's inability to pay.

The applicant was entirely successful at trial in setting aside a property transfer on the grounds of undue influence and resulting trust.

The applicant sought costs of $486,500 on a partial and substantial indemnity basis, citing the respondent's unreasonable conduct, breaches of court orders, and rejection of multiple settlement offers.

The court found the respondent unduly lengthened the proceeding and misappropriated funds.

However, applying principles of proportionality and noting some duplication in the applicant's dockets, the court fixed the applicant's all-inclusive costs at $300,000, payable from the respondent's net share of the property sale proceeds.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants.

The court granted the motion, finding the facts supported judgment in the amounts set out in the draft judgment.

The court also declared that the judgment debts arose from fraudulent misrepresentations under section 178(1)(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and would survive any present or future bankruptcy proceedings by the defendants.

No costs were sought or ordered.

Three related Small Claims Court actions involving disputes over real estate commissions between a real estate broker and a businessman.

The businessman claimed a 50% split of commissions based on verbal agreements for three property transactions in 2017 and 2018.

The court held that these verbal agreements were unenforceable under section 4 of the Statute of Frauds, as they concerned an interest in the sale of lands, and the part performance exception did not apply.

A separate dispute arose over a 2021 transaction involving a written Buyer Representation Agreement.

The broker's claim for commission was dismissed because it was barred by a Full and Final Release executed following a prior arbitration settlement.

The businessman's reciprocal claim for a share of that commission was also dismissed because he was not personally a party to the agreement and could not pierce the corporate veil of his own companies to claim entitlement.

All claims and a related defendant's claim for contribution and indemnity were dismissed.

The parties separated after an eight-and-a-half-year relationship during which they had one child via in vitro fertilization.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making and primary residence, citing the respondent father's family violence, coercive control, and inability to co-parent.

The respondent sought joint or sole decision-making and shared parenting time.

The court found that the respondent had engaged in family violence and coercive control, and that his hostility toward the applicant undermined his ability to co-parent.

Relying on the evidence and a section 30 assessment, the court awarded sole decision-making and primary residence to the applicant, with specified unsupervised parenting time for the respondent.

The applicant vendor brought an application under Rule 14.05(3) to compel the respondent purchaser to pay a $1,000,000 balloon payment under a vendor-take-back mortgage.

The respondent argued the payment was not due because the applicant had not completed ongoing remediation work required by the local conservation authority.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation and found that the remediation clause only required the applicant to pay outstanding fees, fines, and orders known at the time of closing within a six-month period.

The clause did not create an open-ended obligation to indemnify the purchaser for unknown future remediation expenses.

The application was granted and the respondent was ordered to make the payment.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to complete an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

The defendant failed to pay the required deposit and failed to close the transaction despite multiple extensions.

The court found the defendant breached the agreement and awarded the plaintiffs damages representing the difference between the contract price and the property's market value on the final scheduled closing date, plus carrying costs.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendants to produce unredacted copies of police reports containing the names of individuals who made complaints against her.

In the alternative, she sought to strike portions of the statement of defence due to the defendants' failure to attend examinations for discovery.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the redacted names were clearly irrelevant to the plaintiff's claims of misfeasance and that protecting the identities of complainants served a public interest.

The court also declined to strike the defence, noting the defendants had no obligation to attend discovery given the scheduling of a summary judgment motion.

The accused was found guilty by a jury of second degree murder and dangerous operation of a conveyance causing bodily harm.

The court determined as fact that the accused intentionally stabbed the victim in the neck over a drug debt and deliberately drove the victim's vehicle into him.

The court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment with a 15-year period of parole ineligibility for the murder, and a concurrent 5-year sentence with a 10-year driving prohibition for the dangerous operation offence.

The applicant, an architecture and design firm, sought approval of a going concern sale transaction and a reverse vesting order (RVO) under the CCAA, with its secured creditor acting as the successful stalking horse bidder.

The court approved the transaction and RVO, finding the sale process was robust and the RVO structure was necessary to preserve key public procurement contracts and tax losses.

The court also approved third-party releases, an extension of the stay of proceedings, a sealing order for commercially sensitive documents, and the Monitor's fees and activities.

The moving parties, a developer and a construction manager, brought a motion under section 44(5) of the Construction Act to reduce the security posted to vacate claims for lien registered by the responding subcontractor.

The moving parties argued the subcontractor was not entitled to cost escalations due to lack of proper notice, a prior promise not to pursue such costs, and an inability to prove quantum.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving parties failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that there was no reasonable basis for the lien amounts claimed.

The court held that the adequacy of notice, the binding nature of the promise, and the quantum of the claim all presented genuine issues requiring a trial.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion to prevent the applicant father from relocating the parties' children to Markham and changing their school from Toronto to Markham pending a final determination of her motion to change.

The court found that the proposed move constituted a relocation under the Divorce Act, as the increased commuting distance would significantly impact the children's relationship with the mother.

Applying the best interests factors, the court ordered that the children continue attending their Toronto school to maintain stability and support the existing equal shared parenting schedule, but declined to prohibit the father from moving the children's residence to Markham during his parenting time.

The mother's request for a Voice of the Child Report was dismissed.