Superior Court of Justice

Sentencing for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking following a guilty plea, where police seized 1,034.6 grams of fentanyl from the offender's person and residence.

The court treated denunciation and deterrence as paramount, emphasizing the deadly nature of fentanyl, the exceptional quantity involved, and the offender's high moral blameworthiness, while also giving weight to the guilty plea, acceptance of responsibility, traumatic background, and strong rehabilitative efforts in custody.

Relying on national and Ontario fentanyl sentencing authorities, the court concluded the offender's conduct exceeded mid-level trafficking but did not establish a sophisticated leadership role in a larger operation.

A sentence of 12-and-one-half years' imprisonment was imposed, less Summers and Duncan credit for pre-sentence custody, together with ancillary DNA, weapons prohibition, and forfeiture orders.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing its action for delay.

The underlying action concerned an insurance claim for an equipment failure.

The court applied a contextual approach, noting that while some periods of delay were unexplained, the plaintiff did not intend to abandon the action, moved promptly to set aside the dismissal once discovered, and the defendants suffered no actual prejudice.

The motion was granted, the dismissal order was set aside, and a timetable was established for mediation and setting the action down for trial.

The applicant sought bail pending appeal from convictions for assault, breach of undertaking, and distributing intimate images without consent, together with a custodial sentence totalling 14 months.

The court held that the appeal was not frivolous, surrender was not in issue, and the determinative question was whether detention was necessary in the public interest under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code.

Applying the public safety and public confidence framework, the court found that a strong surety plan and the applicant's prior compliance on release addressed safety and flight concerns.

The court further found that the proposed conviction appeal raised an arguable circumstantial-evidence burden-of-proof issue under Villaroman and that the sentence appeal was also arguable, while there was a real risk the applicant would serve most or all of the sentence before appeal.

Bail pending appeal was granted.

The plaintiffs purchased an HVAC business from the defendants and subsequently sued for breach of contract, alleging the defendants failed to operate the business in the ordinary course prior to closing.

The plaintiffs claimed the defendants failed to disclose slumping sales, employee layoffs, and deteriorating customer relationships.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, finding they failed to prove the changes were outside the ordinary course of business or not the result of a general deterioration in the HVAC market.

The court further held that even if a breach occurred, the plaintiffs were entirely responsible for their damages because they failed to exercise their contractual right to investigate the company's financial affairs before closing.

The defendants' counterclaim for the balance owing on a promissory note was allowed.

The plaintiff investors brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for fraudulent misrepresentation.

The plaintiffs had invested funds with the defendant for foreign exchange trading based on written agreements that guaranteed the return of their original investments and promised high rates of return.

The defendant lost the funds and admitted breach of contract but denied fraud.

The court found the case suitable for summary judgment and held that the defendant made false representations of fact, knowing they were false or reckless as to their truth, with the intention that the plaintiffs would rely on them.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for fraudulent misrepresentation.

Sentencing for large-scale commercial cocaine trafficking involving 71 kilograms trafficked in one day and more than 100 kilograms overall conduct considered by the court.

The court held that denunciation, deterrence, and the offender's place in the drug hierarchy were dominant considerations, but also weighed youth, family support, limited rehabilitative potential, and the restraint principle applicable to a young first offender.

Social context evidence relating to anti-Black racism was considered but found not sufficiently connected to the offending conduct to materially reduce moral blameworthiness on the record.

A global sentence of 10.5 years concurrent was imposed, with 18 months' credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail, leaving 9 years to serve.

The applicant brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against three properties, alleging that his brother and other family members fraudulently transferred a property held in trust and used the mortgage funds to purchase two other properties.

The court found a triable issue regarding the applicant's interest in two of the properties based on a written trust agreement and the respondents' failure to answer undertakings regarding the use of mortgage funds.

The court granted the CPL for those two properties but dismissed the motion regarding the third property because it was co-owned by non-parties who had not received notice.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized and possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order.

The offences involved the offender handling a restricted handgun in a commercial office while subject to two prior lifetime weapons prohibitions.

The Crown sought a total sentence of 3 years less pre-sentence custody, while the defence sought an 18-month conditional sentence.

The court found the offences fell within the true crime end of the spectrum, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence given the offender's recidivism and disregard for court orders.

The court imposed a sentence of 2 years for the unauthorized possession and a consecutive 6 months for the breach of the prohibition order, less 3 months credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in 2 years and 3 months remaining to serve.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion in a class action regarding the price of packaged bread after discovering potentially fraudulent claims on the settlement funds.

The Settlement Administrator identified that approximately $3.7 million in approved claims had been channeled into a small number of bank accounts.

To investigate the issue, the Settlement Administrator's banking partner required an indemnity.

The court granted an order permitting the Settlement Administrator to use any returned funds to cover claims under the indemnity, with any remaining funds to be distributed cy-près.

The plaintiffs and defendants brought cross-motions for undertakings and refusals arising from examinations for discovery in an action for breach of a rental income guarantee program.

The court ordered the individual defendants to serve further and better affidavits of documents, including searches of relevant email addresses and phone numbers.

The court also ruled on numerous specific refusals from the examinations of several witnesses, applying principles of relevance and proportionality, and upholding claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege where appropriate.

Following a jury conviction for manslaughter arising from an intimate partner's fatal fall down a staircase, the sentencing judge determined the respondent was the aggressor, deliberately pushed the deceased during a prolonged altercation, and was not acting in self-defence, but the Crown did not prove an intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm.

The court treated the offence as serious but closer to an accident than to murder, while identifying substantial aggravating features including the intimate relationship, a pattern of abusive conduct, the deceased's vulnerability from intoxication and illness, and the impact on family and friends.

Mitigating weight was given to the respondent's lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, strong rehabilitative prospects, and more than two years on highly restrictive bail.

Balancing denunciation, deterrence, restraint, and rehabilitation, the court imposed a custodial sentence of three and a half years, less enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, together with DNA, weapons prohibition, and non-communication orders.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing to prevent their action from being administratively dismissed for delay under Rule 48.14.

The plaintiffs argued that the delay was caused by their former counsel's failure to advance the claim.

The court reviewed the timeline of the litigation and found that the plaintiffs failed to provide an adequate explanation for 38.5 months of delay, representing over 45% of the total time since the action commenced.

Balancing the interests of the parties, the court concluded that the excessive unexplained delay warranted dismissal, even without proof of actual prejudice to the defendants.

The plaintiffs' motion was dismissed, and the action was dismissed for delay.

The defendant 2602317 Ontario Inc. brought a motion to hold the defendants SAI Consulting Services Inc. and Toronto Wire & Solutions Corp. in contempt for failing to comply with a prior court order requiring them to pay specific funds received from a real estate transaction into court.

The responding defendants brought cross-motions to set aside the prior order, arguing it was impossible to comply because the specific funds had already been disbursed.

The court dismissed the cross-motions, finding the prior order was clear and the defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify setting it aside.

The court found the corporate defendants in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, and ordered their directors to respond personally at the penalty phase.

The plaintiff law firm brought an in-writing motion for default judgment against the defendant for unpaid legal fees totaling $265,983.49.

The defendant was noted in default and deemed to admit the allegations in the Statement of Claim.

The court granted judgment for the principal amount but declined to award the requested prejudgment interest of 'prime + 2%' because the 'rate of prime' was undefined.

Instead, the court calculated prejudgment interest at 2% per year from 30 days after each invoice date, totaling $14,929.78.

Costs were fixed at $5,395.75 on a partial indemnity scale, and post-judgment interest was set at 4% pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act.

The defendants, two Deputy Judges of the Small Claims Court, requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff sued the Deputy Judges over rulings they made in a Small Claims Court proceeding, alleging obstruction of justice.

The court found the action to be frivolous and an abuse of process on its face, as judicial officers have absolute immunity from civil liability for actions performed in their judicial capacity.

The action was dismissed.

In NOI proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the debtors sought approval of interim financing, a forbearance arrangement, a CRO engagement, an employee retention plan, court-ordered charges, a stalking horse SISP, administrative consolidation, a stay extension, and limited sealing relief.

The court held that the proposed restructuring steps were appropriate and supported by the proposal trustee, the secured lender, and the evidentiary record, and that the debtors required the DIP facility and sale process to preserve operations and maximize stakeholder recoveries.

The court also approved a customer accommodation agreement and related intellectual property transfer as value-maximizing transactions outside the ordinary course.

Applying the statutory extension criteria and the Sherman Estate sealing framework, the court extended the stay and sealed confidential employee compensation information.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking to strike the respondent father's pleadings, vary interim support, sell the jointly owned home, and change the child's school.

The court dismissed the requests to strike pleadings and change the child's school, finding it in the child's best interests to remain in his current school.

Interim support was maintained, though section 7 expenses were adjusted to reflect the parties' incomes.

The court ordered the sale of the home on consent, with proceeds to be divided equally.

Costs were awarded to the respondent father on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought to have an urgent motion timetabled and heard for an injunction to prevent the respondent association's annual general meeting from taking place.

The applicant alleged his application to stand for election to the board of directors was wrongfully denied and his membership improperly terminated.

The court dismissed the request for an urgent hearing, finding that the urgency was of the applicant's own making due to an unexplained ten-month delay in seeking relief.

Sentencing for a guilty plea to robbery arising from a planned, violent takeover robbery of a cash business in which masked co-participants used a handgun, forcibly confined employees, and stole over $1 million, while the offender acted as the decoy driver.

The court treated the guilty plea, youth, family support, and some rehabilitative prospects as mitigating, but emphasized planning, anticipated violence, the scale of the theft, and the terror inflicted on the victims.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a 21-month sentence consecutive to an existing sentence for a later home invasion robbery.

The court refused to grant Downes credit for restrictive bail conditions because the offender committed a serious new robbery while on house arrest bail.

Family law trial concerning child support and section 7 childcare expenses for two children after all other issues were resolved.

The court found there was no 50-50 parenting arrangement after separation until January 2025, and that the respondent's parenting time again fell below the 40% threshold when he relocated, so the presumptive table amount applied for those periods.

The court rejected the respondent's evidence about unemployment, job search efforts, and finances, found him intentionally underemployed or unemployed, and imputed income based on prior earnings.

Although the parties later resumed shared parenting, the court held a set-off under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines was inappropriate given the parties' circumstances and the respondent's conduct.

Retroactive child support and proportional contribution to childcare expenses were ordered.