Self-represented

The court considered a motion by Mr. Simms to oppose the confirmation of a certificate of an assessment officer, effectively appealing the assessment of costs.

The motion was brought more than two years after service of the certificate, well outside the 15-day period set by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the delay was not adequately explained and that the merits of the appeal were insufficient to justify an extension of time.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary parenting, child and spousal support, equalization, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, life insurance, and costs.

The court found the respondent's behaviour troubling, imputed income for child support, granted arrears and retroactive support, and ordered exclusive possession of the home and life insurance.

The applicant was also granted the right to seek spousal support in the future, and the respondent was ordered to pay an equalization amount.

Payment of certain amounts was deferred until the sale of the home.

The appellant, Ahmed Ali Debouk, appealed his convictions for extortion, uttering death threats, criminal harassment, and breaching a non-communication condition, arguing his guilty pleas were involuntary due to pre-trial detention pressures and that his Charter rights were violated by non-disclosure of a voice mail recording.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in either ground, holding that the pleas were voluntary, unequivocal, and informed, and that there was no evidence of non-disclosure or prejudice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Court of Justice found 10695025 Canada Ltd. guilty of 15 counts of Fire Code violations occurring on October 4, 2023, at a leased industrial property in Mississauga where cannabis was cultivated.

The defendant corporation did not appear at trial, which proceeded in absentia under s. 54(1) of the Provincial Offences Act.

The court accepted the testimony of a fire inspector and photographic evidence detailing multiple violations including lack of smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, obstructed exits, improper fire separations, and inadequate fire extinguisher maintenance.

The court also addressed the issue of corporate liability post-dissolution, interpreting s. 226(2) of the Canada Business Corporations Act to hold a dissolved corporation liable for offences committed up to two years after dissolution if it continued business activities.

The 16th count was dismissed due to insufficient evidence regarding NFPA 25 compliance.

The court considered a motion by Sandra Couto seeking sanctions against Jason Carvalho for failing to comply with a financial disclosure order in ongoing family law litigation.

The court found that Jason had not complied with the order, particularly in failing to provide third-party authorizations and certain financial information.

Jason was given a final 15-day period to comply, after which Sandra may move to strike his pleadings.

The court declined to immediately strike pleadings or bar Jason from further relief, recognizing his self-represented status and confusion, but emphasized the importance of compliance with disclosure orders.

The court considered a motion by Sandra Couto seeking sanctions against Jason Carvalho for failing to comply with a financial disclosure order in ongoing family law litigation.

The court found that Jason had not complied with the order, particularly in failing to provide third-party authorizations and certain financial information.

Jason was given a final 15-day period to comply, after which Sandra may move to strike his pleadings.

The court declined to immediately strike pleadings or bar Jason from further relief, recognizing his self-represented status and confusion, but emphasized the importance of compliance with disclosure orders.

The Ontario Court of Justice acquitted Mario Takov of impaired driving charges under s. 320.14 of the Criminal Code.

The case centered on the interpretation and application of the "evaluation" conducted by a certified Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) under s. 320.28(2)(a).

The judge undertook a detailed statutory interpretation, concluding that the "evaluation" mandated by the Criminal Code is the 12-Step Drug Influence Evaluation (12-Step DIE) as defined by the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

The court found significant reliability issues with the Evaluating Officer's administration of the 12-Step DIE, including deviations from standardized procedures and an opinion inconsistent with the expected indicators for impairment by a CNS stimulant.

The Crown failed to prove the required facts to trigger the presumptions under s. 320.31(6), and the evidence did not establish impairment by alcohol or drugs beyond a reasonable doubt.

This decision follows an uncontested trial regarding the residency, decision-making, and parenting time for two children wrongfully removed from Ontario to Lebanon by the respondent, Luna Mounir Andraos.

The court confirms final orders for the children to reside with the applicant, Amin Joseph Barakat, who is granted sole decision-making responsibility, and for the respondent to have only supervised parenting time.

The court also addresses the respondent’s ongoing defiance of previous orders and awards costs for the uncontested trial.

This decision addresses the division of property, child support, and spousal support following the breakdown of an 18-year marriage between parties who immigrated from Iran to Canada.

The main issue was the treatment of the Mehr (a marriage contract requiring payment of 800 gold coins), its enforceability, and its impact on equalization of net family property.

The court found the Mehr was not paid, ordered an unequal division of property in the husband's favour due to unconscionability, and dismissed the husband's claim for spousal support.

The court also set out child support obligations and addressed credibility issues with both parties.

The court found Jamar Bailey guilty of robbery, pointing a firearm, and being in a motor vehicle knowing there was a firearm, in connection with a planned online transaction for PlayStation 5s and an X-Box.

The case turned on circumstantial evidence linking Bailey to the Snapchat handle “cookiestoronto,” the presence of a black Mazda 3, and the recent possession of a PlayStation 5.

The court rejected the defence alibi as unreliable and found the eyewitness identification evidence to be of no value.

The court also addressed Charter issues regarding police access to digital evidence, ultimately finding no prejudice.

Bailey was acquitted on charges of possession of a gun without a licence and reckless discharge.

The decision addresses a motion by landlords Juan Liu and Bobin Rui to lift the stay of proceedings under section 69.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) in respect of their tenant, Leanna Mae Snaith, who had filed for bankruptcy after eviction orders were made against her.

The court reviews the procedural history, including the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) orders, review and appeal proceedings, and the bankruptcy filing.

The court finds that the eviction order is not a "claim provable in bankruptcy" and thus not subject to the stay, or, in the alternative, that the stay should be lifted under section 69.4 of the BIA due to material prejudice to the landlords.

The court also provides guidance on the interaction between residential tenancy law and bankruptcy, and addresses costs.

This decision addresses a costs endorsement following parenting motions concerning a 6-year-old child.

The mother was successful and sought costs of $13,526.

The father, initially represented by counsel but later acting in person, did not file costs submissions.

The court reviewed general principles of costs under the Family Law Rules, including reasonableness, proportionality, and conduct of the parties.

The father breached court orders by overholding the child and attending the child's school contrary to the order.

The court fixed costs at $7,500 payable monthly by the father, considering his modest means and ongoing child support obligations.

The court considered an application by Wioleta Kosewski to set aside or vary a separation agreement with Mariusz Kosewski, particularly as it pertained to child support and spousal support.

The court found that the child support provisions were unreasonable due to lack of income disclosure and adjustment, and set aside those provisions, ordering new support based on expert evidence of the respondent’s income.

The spousal support waiver was not set aside, as the applicant did not meet the evidentiary threshold for duress or lack of understanding.

The court also addressed section 7 expenses, medical and dental expenses, outstanding costs orders, and the allocation of expert fees.

The court considered an application by Wioleta Kosewski to set aside or vary a separation agreement with Mariusz Kosewski, particularly as it pertained to child support and spousal support.

The court found that the child support provisions were unreasonable due to lack of income disclosure and adjustment, and set aside those provisions, ordering new support based on expert evidence of the respondent’s income.

The spousal support waiver was not set aside, as the applicant did not meet the evidentiary threshold for duress or lack of understanding.

The court also addressed section 7 expenses, medical and dental expenses, outstanding costs orders, and the allocation of expert fees.

The plaintiff, Antonio De Bartolo, sought to hold Roberto Mattacchione personally liable for legal fees incurred by Initiatives Canada Corporation (ICC), for which Mattacchione was the principal.

The court found that there was no enforceable contract or guarantee between De Bartolo and Mattacchione, and dismissed the claim against Mattacchione personally.

Judgment was granted against ICC and PAC Protection Corporation for the outstanding legal fees and interest.

The court granted a vexatious litigant order against Abu Ubaida Amin and his corporations, barring them from instituting or continuing any legal proceedings in Ontario without leave of the court.

The decision details Mr. Amin’s extensive and unsuccessful litigation history, including numerous proceedings against a wide range of parties, repeated complaints to regulatory bodies, and persistent inappropriate communications with counsel and the court.

The court found that nearly all hallmarks of vexatious litigation were present and that Mr. Amin’s conduct placed an inordinate burden on the justice system.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The applicant, Alex Beseiso, sought a stay of proceedings on the basis that his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter was breached.

The court analyzed the periods of delay, attributing some to the defence and some to exceptional circumstances, and found the net delay to be below the 30-month ceiling for Superior Court matters.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant, Kyle Watson, appealed his sentence for robbery and failure to comply with a release order.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted leave to appeal but ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge’s application of the principles of restraint and consideration of the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody.

The sentencing judge had taken into account the appellant’s Indigenous identity, personal history, and the conditions of pre-sentence custody, and provided appropriate credit for time served.

The sentence imposed was found to be within a reasonable range given the circumstances.

The decision addresses two motions in an estate dispute: a motion by Julie Garneau for production of records from several non-parties under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and a motion by Karen Joanne Garneau to strike Julie's Reply Affidavit.

The court struck the Reply Affidavit as improper reply evidence and dismissed the production motion as premature, finding that the parties had not yet exchanged affidavits of documents or conducted discoveries.

The court held that the requested records could be sought after the discovery phase if necessary, and that some records were subject to solicitor-client privilege.