Self-represented

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted a conditional stay of a summary judgment and writ of possession in a mortgage enforcement action.

The moving parties, unrepresented at trial, sought a stay pending appeal after summary judgment was granted against them and a writ of possession issued.

The court found that while the original grounds of appeal did not raise a serious question to be tried, a new ground—whether the summary judgment process was appropriate given evidence of conflict of interest and lack of independent legal advice—did raise a serious question.

The court held that denying a stay could cause irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the moving parties.

The stay was granted until July 25, 2025, with a further extension conditional on amending the grounds of appeal.

The court dismissed Tianjian Wang’s action against the Attorney General of Canada and Joanne Gentile for lack of jurisdiction, holding that section 236 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act bars civil actions by federal public service employees for employment-related disputes, requiring such matters to be addressed through the grievance process.

The court rejected constitutional challenges to section 236, finding it within Parliament’s authority and not discriminatory under the Charter.

The court sentenced Richard Goodland to 3.5 years in the penitentiary for possession of child pornography, following a conviction based on undisputed facts.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offence, the accused’s background, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court emphasizes the harm caused by child pornography, the need for denunciation and deterrence, and Parliament’s direction for increased sentences for offences against children.

Ancillary orders were also imposed, including forfeiture, internet restrictions, SOIRA, DNA order, and a prohibition on contact with persons under 16.

The plaintiff, Oslyn Lewis, brought an action against The Hertz Corporation, Hertz Canada Limited, Hertz Canada Vehicles Partnership, and TD Canada Trust after a rental car was seized with his belongings inside.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Hertz, finding that the parties had previously settled the dispute and Lewis had signed a release covering all claims.

The court found no evidence of breach of settlement or prejudice to the plaintiff, and that all claims—including those about being banned and alleged false statements to TD—were covered by the release.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a two-day family law trial concerning parenting time.

The respondent sought to extend midweek overnight parenting time but was unsuccessful.

The court considered the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and the proportionality of costs.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs of $4,500, reflecting her success on the primary issue and the reasonableness of the parties' positions.

The decision highlights the application of Family Law Rules subrules 24(12), 24(13), and 24(14) in assessing costs, emphasizing the importance of offers to settle and the conduct of parties in family litigation.

This endorsement addresses a motion for costs brought by the Toronto Police Service Board following the abandonment of an appeal by Gary Curtis and Tanya Rebello.

The court found that the Board was entitled to costs, as its responding materials were served before the Notice of Abandonment was filed.

The court rejected the applicants' arguments regarding entitlement and quantum of costs, and awarded the Board $19,365.37, inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following the defendants’ successful motion to dismiss or stay the action due to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with a prior costs order.

The court reviews the parties’ written submissions, finds the defendants’ costs reasonable, and orders the plaintiff to pay costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to her conduct during the motion.

The court also rejects the plaintiff’s request for costs against the defendants’ lawyer personally.

This endorsement addresses cross-motions by Basseth McLean and Sonia Connell, each seeking to have the other declared a vexatious litigant under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court reviews the lengthy litigation history between the parties, including multiple appeals and motions regarding the sale of their former matrimonial home and related costs.

Both vexatious litigant motions are dismissed, as is Ms. Connell’s motion to strike Mr. McLean’s pleadings.

The Court grants Mr. McLean an extension to file responding materials and allows Ms. Connell to add an appeal of a costs order to her perfected appeal.

The Court sets strict directions to ensure the efficient progress of the appeal and prohibits further motions without leave.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Maureen Chevalier, finding that Melissa Chevalier was a tenant and not a co-owner or beneficiary of the property at 1377 Matthew Crescent, Belle River, Ontario.

The decision turned on the evidence that Melissa did not contribute to the purchase price, her payments were treated as rent, and there was no evidence of a trust or unjust enrichment.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and dismissed Melissa’s claims.

This endorsement addresses cross-motions by Basseth McLean and Sonia Connell, each seeking to have the other declared a vexatious litigant under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court reviews the lengthy litigation history between the parties, including multiple appeals and motions regarding the sale of their former matrimonial home and related costs.

Both vexatious litigant motions are dismissed, as is Ms. Connell’s motion to strike Mr. McLean’s pleadings.

The Court grants Mr. McLean an extension to file responding materials and allows Ms. Connell to add an appeal of a costs order to her perfected appeal.

The Court sets strict directions to ensure the efficient progress of the appeal and prohibits further motions without leave.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed David Tweneboa-Kodua’s motion for leave to appeal an order lifting a stay of eviction, finding the court lacked jurisdiction.

The proper avenue to challenge the Divisional Court’s order was a motion before a panel of that court, not an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The court found the motion frivolous and an abuse of process, and made no order as to costs.

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.

The reasons for decision in this matter are not available at this time.

The reasons for decision in this matter are not available at this time.

The court dismissed James Brajak’s application as frivolous under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The application sought declarations regarding beneficial ownership of a purported estate/trust and recognition as a “free private ecclesiastical person.” The court found the application lacked legal basis or merit, was not justiciable, and relied on nonsensical and religious arguments.

The court emphasized the importance of robustly applying Rule 2.1 to prevent waste of judicial resources.

The appellant, Milad Babadi, sought to reopen his appeal from convictions and sentence after his appeal was previously dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario declined to admit new evidence and dismissed the motion to reopen, finding no compelling basis to do so and confirming the finality of its earlier decision.

This endorsement addresses chronic delays in the transportation of accused persons in custody from Maplehurst Correctional Complex and Vanier Centre for Women to the Milton courthouse.

The court highlights the negative impact of these delays on the administration of justice, including lost court time and potential interference with the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The judge notes that previous efforts to resolve the issue have been unsuccessful and emphasizes that the problem is not due to intentional misconduct by staff.