Superior Court of Justice

The accused was tried on charges of sexual interference and sexual assault arising from allegations by a child complainant that he touched her vagina on multiple occasions and licked her vagina once while living in the same household as her mother’s common law spouse.

The court admitted the complainant’s videotaped statement under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code and assessed the evidence under the W(D.) framework, while also applying the common-sense approach to child testimony described by the Supreme Court.

Although the trial judge found the complainant careful, credible, and unaffected by malice, he also found the accused sincere, internally consistent, and capable of raising a reasonable doubt.

Because the Crown failed to disprove the accused’s denial beyond a reasonable doubt, verdicts of not guilty were entered on both counts.

The parties appealed an arbitrator's award regarding financial issues following their separation.

The central issues involved the calculation of the respondent's equalization payment, including the treatment of inherited properties and title to the matrimonial home, as well as the calculation of his income for spousal and child support purposes.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the arbitrator erred in allowing the respondent to claim sole ownership of the matrimonial home, applying the doctrines of issue estoppel and res judicata based on a prior consent award for its sale.

The court also corrected the arbitrator's calculation of the respondent's income for support purposes, but otherwise dismissed the appeals regarding the treatment of inherited property, spousal support duration, and prejudgment interest.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's dismissal for delay in a Simplified Procedure action concerning an alleged breach of a commercial lease.

The action was dismissed after five years due to a combination of prior counsel's inaction, misguided procedural steps including an improperly obtained default judgment, and current counsel's inadvertence in tracking the five-year anniversary.

Applying the Reid Factors, the court found the motion was brought promptly, the delay was largely explained by counsel changes and errors, and the defendants failed to establish non-compensable prejudice.

Emphasizing the policy of resolving disputes on their merits, especially when dismissal results from counsel's error, the court granted the motion, setting aside the dismissal.

No costs were awarded, as the defendants' costs were deemed unreasonable and avoidable.

The accused, a youthful offender, was sentenced for his participation in a bank robbery where approximately $100,000 remained unrecovered.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary term, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with the accused's rehabilitative prospects, the court imposed a custodial sentence of 18 months less pre-trial custody credit, along with a $50,000 restitution order and ancillary orders.

The accused was charged with possessing, accessing, and making child pornography available after police executed a search warrant at his residence and found illicit files on his computer.

During a blended voir dire and trial, the court found that police breached the accused's s. 10(b) Charter rights by failing to promptly caution him upon detention and delaying his access to counsel for over three hours.

Consequently, the accused's initial utterances were excluded under s. 24(2).

However, portions of a subsequent videotaped interview were admitted, as they were voluntary and survived s. 24(2) scrutiny despite being tainted by the earlier breaches.

Relying on the admitted statements and circumstantial evidence of the accused's sophisticated computer usage, the court found the accused guilty on all counts.

The plaintiffs sought leave to obtain a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against an investment property, arguing they were improperly excluded from its marketing and sale despite being 22.5% investors.

The property had been sold for $239,000 above fair market value.

The court dismissed the motion for a CPL, finding the property was not unique, was acquired solely for investment, and damages could be easily calculated, thus an alternative claim for damages was satisfactory.

The court balanced the equities, concluding that a CPL would cause immediate and serious negative financial consequences for all investors.

Instead, the court ordered 22.5% of the net sale proceeds and a further $22,500 (representing 22.5% of the vendor take-back mortgage) to be paid into court to secure the plaintiffs' interest, allowing the sale to proceed.

The accused, Muhammad Hassan, applied for a bail review after being detained on charges of possession of a loaded restricted firearm and cocaine for trafficking.

The application was based on a material change in circumstances, as prior drug-related charges had been acquitted or stayed.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed sureties (brother-in-law and family friend) and electronic monitoring plan were insufficient to address the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention.

The court emphasized the seriousness of the current charges, the applicant's history of bail breaches while on prior release, and the limited effectiveness of electronic monitoring without strong supervision.

The accused was tried on sexual assault and sexual touching counts involving two 15-year-old complainants arising from separate incidents at the same apartment during the same summer.

The court admitted the evidence of each complainant as similar fact evidence on the other counts, applying the Handy framework and finding substantial similarities, strong probative value, and no air of reality to allegations of collusion.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused’s testimony as incredible and found both complainants credible, internally consistent, and corroborated by surrounding evidence, including expert medical evidence respecting healed genital injury to one complainant.

Convictions were entered on all remaining counts.

The applicant mother sought child support under the Divorce Act for the parties' 27-year-old disabled daughter, who resides in a therapeutic home and receives ODSP benefits.

The court found that the daughter's receipt of ODSP displaced the presumptive Guidelines amount, and that she did not have a monthly budget deficit.

However, the court ordered the respondent father to pay $100 per month as his proportionate share of the daughter's section 7 expenses, such as clothing and personal hygiene items.

The court fixed costs for a successful motion to strike brought by the plaintiff.

The defendant sought full indemnity costs, but the court limited the award to partial indemnity, finding no conduct warranting enhanced costs.

Considering the motion's simplicity, discrete issues, and some duplication in counsel's work, the court awarded the amount the plaintiff was prepared to pay, $3,606.50, as reasonable partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against the developers of a cancelled pre-construction condominium project, alleging breach of contract and bad faith in invoking an early termination condition.

Following a settlement meeting and document review, the parties agreed to a without-costs discontinuance.

The court approved the consent motion to discontinue the action under section 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, finding that the discontinuance would not prejudice the putative class members, who had not yet been notified of the proceeding and could still pursue individual claims before the expiry of the limitation period.

A former police informant, John Doe (previously Cecil Kirby), sued the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) for breach of contract, breach of privacy, and negligence after the CBC rebroadcast a 1984 interview in 2015.

The plaintiff alleged an oral agreement that the interview would only be shown once.

The CBC moved for summary judgment, asserting the written contract granted them full rights to the content and denying any oral agreement.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no admissible evidence to support the alleged oral agreement and that the written contract provided lawful justification for the rebroadcast, thereby dismissing all claims.

The applicant, a secured creditor and shareholder of the respondent, applied to appoint a receiver over the respondent's assets, which primarily consisted of patents for waste-to-energy technology.

A founder and shareholder of the respondent moved to stay the application, arguing the dispute over the validity of the applicant's security should be arbitrated under a unanimous shareholder agreement.

The court dismissed the motion to stay and granted the receivership application, finding that the respondent lacked funds to maintain its patents or participate in arbitration, and a court-appointed receiver was necessary to preserve the intellectual property and determine creditor priorities.

The plaintiff moved for an order extending the time to serve a statement of claim in a construction lien action.

The claim was not served within the 90-day period prescribed by the Construction Act due to inadvertence.

The court granted the extension, finding the six-week delay was not inordinate and caused no prejudice to the defendants.

However, as the motion was an indulgence necessitated by the plaintiff's inadvertence, the court awarded costs to the responding defendant.

The applicant sought joint and shared custody of the parties' two children.

The respondent sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the children to Washington State to live with her new husband.

The court granted joint custody but gave final decision-making authority to the respondent.

The court permitted the respondent to relocate with the children to Washington State, finding she was the primary caregiver and the move was in the children's best interests.

The applicant was granted generous access and relieved of child support obligations to offset travel costs.

The plaintiff (defendant to the counterclaim) brought a motion seeking an order that the defendant (plaintiff by counterclaim) post further security for costs in the amount of $174,000.00.

The court found the requested amount excessive, noting inflated estimates for lawyers' time.

Exercising its broad discretion, the court ordered the defendant to post a further all-inclusive installment of $70,000.00 as security for costs of the counterclaim.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the defendant in the cause, as the ordered amount was closer to their position and they had attempted to settle.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to bring a motion after the action was set down for trial, seeking to compel the plaintiff to attend an independent neuropsychological examination.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the defendant had sufficient time to arrange the assessment and that her condition was well-documented.

The court granted leave, finding that the plaintiff's late service of a new neuropsychological report constituted a substantial and unexpected change in circumstances.

Applying the factors for ordering a further medical examination, the court held that the defendant was entitled to respond to the plaintiff's expert report with a matching specialty report to ensure trial fairness.

The plaintiff was ordered to attend the examination, and the defendant was granted an extension of time to serve the resulting report.

The plaintiff, Tribute (Simcoe Street) Limited, brought a motion for default judgment against defendant Xiao Ping Huang for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a townhouse condominium.

Ms. Huang, who was assigned the APS, failed to take possession on the scheduled occupancy date and subsequently did not file a statement of defence, leading to her being noted in default.

The court found Ms. Huang in breach of the APS and awarded the plaintiff damages totaling $87,678.21, representing the difference between the original purchase price and the resale price, unpaid occupancy fees, and other related costs and interest.

The court also awarded costs on a full indemnity basis as stipulated in the APS but declined to apply the contractual post-judgment interest rate, instead applying the statutory rate, citing a lack of evidence that the clause was brought to Ms. Huang's attention and a significant power imbalance.

Mr. Amiri applied for certiorari to quash an information charging him with failing to comply with a bail order.

He argued that cc'ing his wife on emails to her lawyer, sent for the purpose of discussing settlement of a family matter, constituted communication "in the presence of legal counsel" and thus did not violate his bail condition.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the laying of the information did not constitute legal or jurisdictional error, and that the issue was a trial matter.

The court also noted the Supreme Court's guidance in R. v. Zora on the subjective intent required for bail breaches and the "over criminalization" of such charges, suggesting the case might be appropriate for a judicial referral hearing under s. 523.1 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking orders related to the respondent father's alleged alcohol consumption while driving with their child, including the use of an alcohol monitoring device and third-party transportation.

The mother's concerns stemmed from an incident where the child reported erratic driving and the father drinking.

The father denied the allegations, asserting he consumed only one glass of wine and that erratic driving was due to another vehicle.

The court found insufficient objective evidence to substantiate the mother's claims of alcohol addiction or to justify the imposition of an alcohol monitoring device or third-party transport.

However, the father's undertaking not to consume alcohol 12 hours prior to any access exchange was formalized into a temporary court order.

The court also granted the mother leave to file an application and scheduled a case conference.