Self-represented

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.

This decision concerns a Gardiner hearing following S.M.'s guilty plea to two counts of sexual assault against his biological daughters, V.M. and M.G. The court reviews the evidence to determine aggravating facts, including the number, nature, and circumstances of the assaults.

The decision addresses the credibility and reliability of the complainants, the timing and location of the assaults, and the extent of family knowledge and disclosure.

The court finds the core details of the assaults proven beyond a reasonable doubt, despite some inconsistencies in peripheral details, and concludes that the complainants did not collude or exaggerate their testimony.

The appellant, Justin Aghayere Omoragbon, sought leave to appeal his 26-month sentence for breaking and entering a dwelling-house.

He argued that the sentencing judge erred by not accepting the 18-month sentence proposed by the Crown and later adopted by the defence.

The Court of Appeal found that there was no joint submission on sentence, no violation of the principles in R. v. Nahanee or R. v. Anthony-Cook, and that the sentencing judge properly considered the mitigating factors and the appellant’s circumstances.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Claire Lesley Crampton, contributed two-thirds of the purchase price for a property in Cayuga, Ontario, with the understanding she would have a corresponding ownership interest, though title was taken in the defendant David Lightfoot’s name alone.

When the relationship between the parties broke down, the plaintiff sought the return of her investment or a declaration of her ownership.

The court found that a resulting trust existed in favour of the plaintiff, entitling her to 66.67% of the property and ordered its sale under the Partition Act.

The decision addresses a motion regarding the production and inspection of documents in an interpleader application brought by McAsphalt Industries Limited, a tenant on lands leased from the Fort William First Nation Development Corporation.

The City of Thunder Bay sought production of a 2017 Settlement Agreement and certain Addition to Reserve (ATR) Applications.

The court held that the 2017 Settlement Agreement should be produced for inspection, subject to the deemed undertaking rule, but refused to order production of the ATR Applications, finding they were not referred to in the relevant pleadings or affidavits and that their production was premature.

The court also declined to exempt the City from the deemed undertaking rule at this stage.

The court considered whether the plaintiff's statement of claim was frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The registrar referred the motion to the judge after a request from the defendants' counsel.

The court stayed the action pending a written hearing and directed the registrar to notify the plaintiff and restrict further filings except for the plaintiff’s submissions.

The judge will remain seized of the matter.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The plaintiff, Alma Cherry, requested an adjournment due to health issues and the volume of materials recently served on her.

The court granted the adjournment, scheduling the motion for December 1, 2025, and directed the defendants not to serve any further materials on Ms. Cherry before the motion.

The court clarified that related proceedings involving Ms. Cherry and Novex Insurance Company would not affect the timing of the present motion.

The court considered an application by Donna Mary Whibbs for an order declaring Daniel Lee Dobson a vexatious litigant under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The decision reviews the parties' history of litigation, including proceedings before the Landlord and Tenant Board, restraining order applications, and multiple Small Claims Court actions.

The court found that Dobson had persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings and conducted litigation in a vexatious manner, primarily to harass the applicant and her counsel.

The court granted a tailored vexatious litigant order prohibiting Dobson from instituting or continuing proceedings against Whibbs and her counsel without leave of the court.

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 court dismissed Aqib Rahman's action against Dewart Gleason LLP and Lawyers Professional Indemnity Company as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The claim alleged civil fraud by the defendants in defending lawyers in prior litigation, but the court found that the doctrine of absolute privilege, as confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Rahman v. Elia Associates, provided a complete defence.

The court held that the action was devoid of merit, sought to relitigate settled issues, and should not proceed.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The statement of claim failed to disclose any intelligible or actionable claim, and the plaintiffs did not provide submissions when invited.

The court granted leave to amend within 60 days and awarded no costs.

The applicant, M.D., sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Director of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) to lay criminal charges against two police officers following an incident in which M.D. alleged sexual assault during a search at a hospital.

The court considered whether the SIU Director had a duty to lay charges, whether an alternative remedy was available, and whether the merits of the Director’s decision justified mandamus.

The court found no duty owed to the applicant to form reasonable and probable grounds, held that the private prosecution process under section 504 of the Criminal Code was an adequate alternative remedy, and found no evidence of bias or improper motive in the Director’s decision.

The application for mandamus was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Adan McIntosh’s appeal from the dismissal of his motion to vary a parenting order.

The court found no material change in circumstances warranting a variation, emphasizing the ongoing risk of wrongful removal of the children to Australia and Mr. McIntosh’s failure to pay support and costs.

The court also addressed the children’s preferences, the financial and emotional impact of the litigation on Ms. Kim, and the principles governing variation of parenting orders.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Adan McIntosh’s appeal from the dismissal of his motion to vary a parenting order.

The court found no material change in circumstances warranting a variation, emphasizing the ongoing risk of wrongful removal of the children to Australia and Mr. McIntosh’s failure to pay support and costs.

The court also addressed the children’s preferences, the financial and emotional impact of the litigation on Ms. Kim, and the principles governing variation of parenting orders.

The plaintiff, Ahmed Abada, brought an action against his former PhD supervisor, the University of Ottawa, and a former friend, alleging damages for loss of earnings, general and punitive damages, and various torts arising from his removal from the PhD program.

The court found that the core of the dispute was academic in nature and that Abada had already availed himself of the university's internal appeal processes, which resolved the issues of bursary payment and academic progress.

The court dismissed all claims, finding no negligence, breach of contract, or tortious conduct by the defendants, and held that Abada was primarily responsible for his failure to complete the program due to personal and legal issues.

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 respondent, Cynthia Meek, sought declaratory relief to allow her to audio record court appearances, including her upcoming trial, arguing that the Practice Direction requiring leave to record is inconsistent with section 136(2)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act and violates the Charter.

The court found that both the Act and the Practice Direction require judicial discretion for recording requests and are not in conflict.

The motion for declaratory relief was dismissed.

This decision addresses a motion to change child support and related orders for two adult children, DY and CZ.

The court finds that DY, despite being over 18 and not attending school full-time, remains a "child of the marriage" due to significant mental health challenges.

The court orders continued support and sets out a detailed framework for the release of RESP funds and the sharing of post-secondary and section 7 expenses.

The decision also addresses the parties' ongoing disclosure issues, the need for mediation before further litigation, and the cessation of child support for CZ upon completion of her first degree.