Superior Court of Justice

The accused was charged with first degree murder following the abduction, severe beating, and death of the victim over a drug debt.

The accused conceded causing the death and forcible confinement, leaving the sole issue of whether he had the requisite intent for murder.

The court found that the accused's actions, including the brutal attack and leaving the victim in a remote, freezing field with severe injuries, demonstrated the requisite intent for murder.

The accused was found guilty of first degree murder.

The applicant, charged with offences related to a home invasion, brought an application alleging that the arresting officer used excessive force by smashing his head into the ground five times, in breach of his rights under ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings or a reduction in sentence.

The court found that the applicant embellished his injuries and the degree of force used, and that the medical evidence did not support his claims.

The court concluded that the officer's conduct was objectively reasonable in the exigent circumstances of the arrest.

The application was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of sexually abusing his stepdaughter between the ages of four and twelve.

The Crown sought a seven-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or reformatory term, citing the offender's mental health issues, lack of criminal record, and the historical nature of the offences.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children.

The court sentenced the offender to five years' imprisonment, balancing the profound harm caused to the victim against the offender's mental illness and rehabilitative efforts.

The applicant wife brought a motion to find the respondent husband in breach of previous child support, spousal support, and costs orders, and to strike his pleadings.

The husband had accumulated over $52,000 in arrears and claimed impecuniosity due to the pandemic, despite maintaining his pre-separation lifestyle.

The court found the husband in breach of the orders but declined to immediately strike his pleadings, instead granting him a final opportunity to pay the outstanding arrears and costs by a specified date, failing which the wife could move to strike his pleadings on all non-parenting issues.

The appellant, Andrew Liverance, appealed a s. 810 peace bond imposed by a Justice of the Peace.

The appeal focused on whether the original hearing adhered to principles of natural justice and whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Superior Court found that the Justice of the Peace failed to provide the unrepresented appellant with a fair hearing by denying him the opportunity to make submissions, curtailing cross-examination, providing incorrect procedural guidance, and refusing an adjournment to call witnesses and present evidence.

The court also found a reasonable apprehension of bias, as the Justice of the Peace appeared to have decided the case before all evidence and submissions were complete.

The peace bond was quashed, and no new hearing was ordered.

The court-appointed Receiver of Chieftain Metals brought a motion for discharge.

The secured creditor, West Face, supported the discharge but sought a provision allowing it to move for the re-appointment of a receiver at any time in the future to facilitate a potential sale of the mining project.

The Province of British Columbia and the Taku River Tlingit First Nation opposed an open-ended right, citing environmental remediation concerns and uncertainty.

The court granted the discharge but limited the secured creditor's right to seek re-appointment to a two-year period, balancing the commercial interests with the need for certainty for the Province and First Nation.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer outstanding undertakings given at her examination for discovery, specifically regarding the production of business records.

The plaintiff argued the records were no longer relevant as she had abandoned her income loss claim and cited financial hardship.

The court granted the motion, holding that undertakings must be honoured once given pursuant to Rule 31.07(4), and that the business records remained relevant to determining whether the plaintiff met the threshold for serious permanent impairment.

The mother brought a motion for parenting and child support, and the father brought a cross-motion for parenting.

The court granted the mother primary care on a without prejudice basis, with joint decision-making.

The father's parenting time was modestly expanded.

Due to the mother's concerns about the father's adherence to Covid-19 guidelines and the maternal grandfather's high-risk health status, the court imposed strict Covid-19 social circle protocols based on Rocheleau v Lajoie.

For child support, the court imputed an annual income of $245,000 to the self-employed father based on his own prior estimate, ordering him to pay $3,217 monthly.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and related offences.

The court considered the offender's extensive criminal record, including prior firearms convictions, as well as mitigating factors such as systemic racism and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

A global sentence of 9 years was imposed, with 64 months of credit granted for pre-sentence custody and harsh conditions, leaving 44 months to serve.

Following conviction on charges arising from an undercover online juvenile prostitution investigation, the applicant renewed the entrapment issue after the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Ahmad.

The court held that while police had a legitimate basis to investigate child sexual exploitation on the website, they did not have reasonable suspicion that this applicant was seeking sexual services from an underage person before inviting him to commit the offences.

The undercover officer’s “bait and switch” approach, including delayed disclosure of age after arrangements and price had already been discussed, constituted impermissible random virtue testing in a virtual space.

Applying the clarified entrapment framework, the court stayed the charges.

The applicant, charged with second-degree murder in a 1998 cold case, applied to change the venue of his trial from Sudbury to Toronto, arguing that extensive pre-trial publicity and public support for the victim made it impossible to empanel an impartial jury in the Northeast Region.

The court reviewed the extent and content of the media coverage, social media commentary, and a public opinion survey.

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a fair and reasonable likelihood of widespread partiality or prejudice that could not be overcome by the safeguards of the jury system.

The application was dismissed, though the court noted the trial might still be moved within the region due to COVID-19 constraints, and imposed a publication ban on specific portions of the reasons.

The plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident claim brought a motion to add a proposed defendant to the action after the apparent expiry of the two-year limitation period.

The plaintiff argued that the claim against the proposed defendant was not discovered until after the Statement of Defence was received.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to lead evidence to overcome the statutory presumption that the claim was discovered on the date of the accident, especially given that the plaintiff had sent a notice of action to the proposed defendant's insurer prior to issuing the Statement of Claim.

The motion to add the proposed defendant was dismissed.

The offender, an 18-year-old Black man at the time of the offences, was convicted of assault causing bodily harm, being unlawfully in a dwelling house, and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court granted a conditional discharge for the marijuana offence but found a conditional discharge contrary to the public interest for the violent and property offences.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years' probation for the assault and dwelling house offences.

The mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' child attend school online due to COVID-19 concerns and a finding of contempt against the father for unilaterally registering the child for in-person attendance.

The father brought a cross-motion for the child to attend in-person and take the school bus.

Applying the Zinati factors, the court found it was in the child's best interests to attend school in-person and take the bus, as there was no evidence of unacceptable risk to the child or family members.

However, the court found the father breached the joint custody order by acting unilaterally and ordered him to pay the mother's costs for the contempt motion.

The appellant appealed a Master's order discharging a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a property owned by his former common-law partner.

The Master discharged the CPL unconditionally after finding the appellant failed to disclose two agreements stating he had no interest in the property and relied on a fraudulent invoice to obtain the ex parte CPL.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error in principle in the Master's exercise of discretion in equity.

The appeal of the Master's substantial indemnity costs award was also dismissed.

Following a five-day family trial where the applicant was entirely successful, she sought costs of approximately $350,000 on a full recovery basis.

The court found that the respondent engaged in bad faith conduct, including hiding income, destroying evidence, and fraudulently conveying assets to his mother to defeat the applicant's equalization claim.

Consequently, the court ordered costs on a full recovery basis under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

After adjusting for proportionality and disallowing fees for a second counsel, the court awarded the applicant $250,000 in costs.

The respondent brought a motion for an equal division of the net proceeds from the sale of a property jointly owned by the unmarried parties.

The applicant opposed, claiming a resulting trust or unjust enrichment based on his unequal financial contributions.

The court found that neither party had pled the issue of property division in their application or answer, and the evidentiary record was deficient.

The court adjourned the motion, granting both parties leave to amend their pleadings and file further evidence.

The defendant moved to strike the self-represented plaintiff's Second Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim without leave to amend.

The plaintiff sought $25 million in damages, alleging various torts and breach of contract arising from the defendants' request to inspect her electronic devices as a condition of settling her husband's separate litigation.

The court found that the pleading failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action, lacked necessary material facts, and was fundamentally defective.

The motion was granted, the claim was struck without leave to amend against all defendants, and costs of $17,500 were awarded to the moving party.

The plaintiffs purchased a residential property from the defendants.

After moving in, the plaintiffs discovered the property had previously been used as a marijuana grow-op.

The plaintiffs sued the vendors, their real estate agent, and the brokerage for misrepresentation and negligence.

The vendor defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the action against them, claiming they had no knowledge of the grow-op.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the vendors' credibility and knowledge, and that granting partial summary judgment would risk inconsistent findings given the intertwined claims against the real estate agent and brokerage.

The applicant sought to be reinstated as a member and director of a not-for-profit religious corporation after being removed for allegedly misappropriating donation funds.

The respondents terminated his membership following an investigation and video surveillance.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the respondents had the authority to terminate the membership under the corporate by-laws and acted with procedural fairness.

Furthermore, relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court held it lacked jurisdiction to intervene in the membership decisions of a religious organization absent an underlying legal right.