Superior Court of Justice

The accused, the sole caregiver for his 21-month-old daughter, was charged with manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death after she died of severe malnutrition and dehydration.

The accused conceded he failed to provide the necessaries of life but argued he was incapacitated by a head injury sustained eight days prior to her death.

The court rejected this defence, finding no evidence of incapacity and noting the child's deterioration would have occurred over weeks.

The court found the accused's failure to provide nourishment was a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent parent.

The accused was found guilty of both charges.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to hold the self-represented defendant in contempt of court for violating a 2019 permanent injunction that prohibited him from publishing defamatory statements about the plaintiffs.

The defendant sought an adjournment to obtain counsel, which the court denied, finding he had ample time and was using the request tactically.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally breached the injunction on multiple occasions through his online broadcasts by repeating defamatory statements about the plaintiffs.

The defendant was found in contempt of court, with a sentencing hearing to be scheduled.

The defendants, the Law Society of Ontario and several of its employees, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office.

The plaintiff, a lawyer, alleged that the defendants acted with malice and deliberately suppressed evidence during a disciplinary investigation against him.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there were genuine issues of credibility regarding what the defendants knew and when they knew it, which could not be resolved on a summary judgment motion even with enhanced fact-finding powers.

The applicant sought costs of $3,272.91 following a successful motion regarding a parenting schedule.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded due to her limited financial means, or alternatively, costs should be fixed at $500.

The court found that the applicant was the successful party, had made reasonable offers to settle, and that the respondent's failure to respond to settlement efforts was unreasonable.

After deducting time entries unrelated to the motion and considering the respondent's ability to pay, the court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $2,000.

The defendant Maryvale brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action due to his failure to pay two costs awards totaling $51,500 arising from a successful appeal and a dismissed leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The plaintiff argued the court lacked jurisdiction under Rules 57.03 and 60.12 as the costs orders did not arise from a contested motion or interlocutory order.

The court found that even if it had jurisdiction, dismissing the action would not be just, as the Court of Appeal had ordered a new trial without making costs payment a precondition, the costs were not sanctions for bad behaviour, the plaintiff's claim was not devoid of merit, and the plaintiff was impecunious.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against his former dentist for dental malpractice, battery, and breach of fiduciary duty following a root canal treatment that resulted in a perforated tooth and subsequent extraction.

The court dismissed the claim, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide the requisite expert medical evidence to establish a breach of the standard of care.

Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff had provided informed consent for the procedures, negating the battery claim, and that the claims relating to the root canal treatment were statute-barred as they were commenced beyond the two-year limitation period.

The moving party, a woodworking contractor, brought a motion under Rules 45.01 and 45.02 for an interim order preserving the proceeds of any sale of the responding party's residential condominium.

The moving party had previously proven its construction lien and was awarded costs and interest in a Master's report, which the responding party was moving to oppose.

The court found that Rule 45.01(1) applied because the report created a connection between the awarded costs and interest and the proceeds of the condominium's sale, and there was evidence the responding party was attempting to sell the unit without notifying his counsel.

The court ordered that $220,000 from any sale proceeds be paid into court pending the final determination of the motion opposing confirmation of the report.

The respondents brought a motion to stay the applicant's court application in favour of arbitration pursuant to s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The dispute arose from a royalty agreement concerning mining claims, which contained an arbitration clause.

The applicant argued that the court should determine the arbitrator's jurisdiction based on exceptions to the competence-competence principle.

The court found that the issues raised, including limitation periods, termination rights, and the application of contra proferentem, required more than a superficial review of the evidentiary record and were not pure questions of law.

The motion to stay was granted, and the alternative request for security for costs was dismissed.

This trial decision addresses a claim by Sunwing Airlines Inc. against a former employee, Amilcar Mora, alleging his involvement in a kickback scheme.

Sunwing contended that Mora received over $500,000 in kickbacks from a Cuban contractor, Sylvie Leduc, between 2012 and 2017.

Mora denied the allegations and brought a wrongful dismissal counterclaim.

The court primarily focused on witness credibility, finding Sunwing's witnesses credible and Mora and a co-defendant, Sonya Sekulic, not credible due to numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in their testimony and documentary evidence.

The court found that Mora was involved in the kickback scheme and that Sunwing had just cause for his termination.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment and noting in default obtained by the plaintiff law firm in an action for unpaid legal fees.

The defendant had inadvertently miscalculated the deadline to file his defence and was noted in default without notice.

The court applied the five-factor test for setting aside a default judgment and found that the defendant moved promptly, had a plausible excuse for the delay, and raised an arguable defence regarding the quality and authorization of the legal work.

The court also noted that the plaintiff's failure to give notice before noting the defendant in default was inconsonant with principles of professionalism.

The motion was granted, and the defendant was permitted to deliver his statement of defence and counterclaim.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused during the cross-examination of the defendant and his father on affidavits filed in support of the defendant's pending motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation.

The court ordered the defendant to produce his current driver's license as it was relevant to an issue of residence raised by the defendant.

However, the court upheld the refusals regarding the defendant's banking and tax records, finding them irrelevant to the discharge motion and overbroad.

The court also upheld a refusal regarding the defendant's reasons for previously acting in person.

The defendant was awarded partial indemnity costs of $8,500.

The Trustee in Bankruptcy brought a motion for the partition and sale of a property in which the bankrupt allegedly held a 20% interest as a tenant in common with his mother.

The bankrupt and his mother claimed the 20% interest was a gift intended to pass only upon her death and was not an asset of the estate.

The court rejected this argument, finding the bankrupt held a 20% interest that vested in the Trustee.

Finding no malice or oppression by the Trustee, the court ordered the sale of the property, stayed for three months to allow the parties to resolve the matter.

The moving party brought a motion for summary judgment to fix child and spousal support arrears, ongoing support, and section 7 expenses, and to impute income to the responding party due to his failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that granting partial summary judgment would risk inconsistent findings at trial.

However, due to the responding party's contumelious failure to disclose, the court imputed income to him for 2018 and 2020, and ordered a trial for the remaining issues including retroactive support, further income imputation, and parenting time.

The parties, who separated in 2016, sought a final order to resolve remaining issues regarding their two children, including the parenting schedule for holidays, sharing of private school tuition and other section 7 expenses, and RESP contributions.

The court ordered a fixed parenting schedule for holidays to minimize conflict, found that private school tuition was a necessary and reasonable section 7 expense to be shared equally, and ordered the applicant to pay her share of the tuition retroactive to the date of separation.

The court also ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant for half of her post-separation contributions to the joint RESP.

The sublandlord brought a motion for summary judgment in its action for breach of a commercial sublease and to dismiss the subtenant's related action for unlawful termination and damages.

The subtenant had intentionally withheld rent during surrender negotiations, prompting the sublandlord to terminate the sublease and lock out the subtenant.

The court found that summary judgment was appropriate despite the intertwined nature of the actions.

The court held that the sublandlord lawfully terminated the sublease due to the subtenant's deliberate default and dismissed the subtenant's claims for lack of evidence.

The sublandlord was awarded damages for rent arrears and operating costs, but its claim for future loss of profit was denied due to insufficient evidence.

The applicant landlord sought to terminate a commercial lease and obtain vacant possession due to the respondent tenant's non-payment of rent, failure to maintain insurance, and unauthorized residential use of the premises.

The tenant, who operated a martial arts studio, had been forced to close due to COVID-19 provincial orders and paid only 25% of the rent.

The court declined to grant the landlord's application, finding that the default was clearly related to the global pandemic and government-mandated shutdown.

The court exercised its equitable jurisdiction to grant the tenant relief from forfeiture, conditional upon the tenant providing proof of insurance and ceasing residential use within ten days.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend a defence psychiatric examination over seven years after the motor vehicle accident and after the matter had been set down for trial.

The court found the defendants had delayed inordinately without adequate explanation, having known of the plaintiff's mental health issues since at least 2018.

The motion was dismissed as granting the relief would prejudice the plaintiff and jeopardize the upcoming trial date.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order placing the child in the father's care under supervision.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the child's return to her care and a trial.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the mother's failure to ensure the child's school attendance, her high-conflict relationship with the society and the father, and the resulting emotional harm to the child.

The court granted summary judgment, found the child in need of protection, placed the child with the father for six months under supervision, and limited the mother's access to written letters.

In a child protection proceeding, the father sought a temporary order returning the child to a 50/50 shared parenting regime.

The children's aid society and the mother opposed, seeking to confirm an existing order placing the child in the mother's care with supervised access for the father.

The court found that returning the child to the father's care was not in the child's best interests due to unresolved concerns regarding the father's alleged drug use, the presence of inappropriate individuals at his residence, and his behavior during access visits.

The court ordered that the child remain in the mother's care subject to society supervision.

The applicant minor hockey association sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent governing body from re-allocating minor hockey programming contrary to a 2018 agreement.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried regarding whether reasonable notice of termination was required, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm.

The court found that any financial losses were quantifiable and compensable in damages, and the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction.

The motion was dismissed.