Silja S. Seppi

The plaintiff's construction lien action was dismissed, and the defendants' counterclaim was allowed.

This decision addresses the defendants' request for full indemnity costs against the plaintiff corporation and its principals due to egregious conduct during litigation.

The court awarded full indemnity costs against the plaintiff corporation and one principal jointly and severally, finding that principal engaged in fraud, fabricated evidence, and repeatedly lied.

Costs were not awarded against another principal, as their misconduct was not directly related to the litigation.

The Applicant sought an increase in spousal support from $15,000 to $30,000 per month, and retroactive support, arguing a material change in circumstances due to the Respondent's undisclosed significant increase in income and net worth following a business merger and IPO shortly after their separation agreement was finalized.

The Respondent argued against variation, citing the Miglin test and claiming the Applicant had access to income from her father's businesses held in trust.

The court found the Respondent engaged in blameworthy conduct by misrepresenting his financial circumstances and failing to disclose the impending business transaction.

The court also affirmed the existence of a resulting trust over the assets held by the Applicant for her father, meaning no income could be imputed to her from those assets.

The court varied the spousal support to $25,000 per month, retroactive to January 1, 2009, and ordered a lump sum payment.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings pending the provision of state-funded counsel following the denial of legal aid, relying on ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter and seeking a Rowbotham order.

The court accepted that legal aid had been finally refused but held the applicant failed to establish indigence due to incomplete and unreliable financial disclosure, unexplained deposits, asset ownership, and lack of corroborating evidence regarding claimed financial limitations.

The court also concluded that the fraud prosecution, involving cheque transactions and documentary evidence, was not legally complex and could proceed fairly with a self‑represented accused supported by interpretation and trial management by the court.

As the applicant failed to satisfy the prerequisites for a Rowbotham order, the application was dismissed.

The plaintiff environmental remediation company brought a motion for summary judgment seeking payment for emergency spill cleanup services following a large canola oil spill at premises owned by the defendant landlord.

The plaintiff claimed compensation on the basis of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit after the tenant who initially retained the services became insolvent.

The court held that the landlord received a clear benefit from the cleanup because the work mitigated environmental harm and reduced the risk of regulatory orders and liability under the Environmental Protection Act.

The services were requested and authorized by a director of both the tenant and the landlord, and the evidence established that the cleanup prevented significant environmental and property damage.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and concluded that allowing the landlord to retain the benefit without payment would be unjust.

The defendant employer brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim without leave to amend.

The self-represented plaintiff alleged statutory violations including the Criminal Code, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Human Rights Code, the Employment Standards Act, and privacy legislation, seeking substantial damages for termination and alleged harassment.

The court found the pleading failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action, lacked material facts, and consisted largely of a lengthy and incoherent compilation of correspondence.

The alleged statutory breaches did not create independent civil causes of action and the Charter did not apply to private litigation.

The court concluded the pleading was radically defective and incapable of being cured by amendment.

An objecting beneficiary challenged the passing of accounts in an estate administration, alleging improper transactions, mismanagement, and improper interest charges relating to loans advanced to beneficiaries during the deceased’s lifetime.

The court reviewed the estate accounts, supporting affidavits, and submissions and found the objections unsupported by reliable evidence.

The evidence established that the loans to beneficiaries were properly documented and accounted for, and that joint accounts held with one beneficiary were included in the estate in accordance with the deceased’s wishes.

The court concluded that the estate trustees properly managed the estate and that their accounting was sufficient.

The estate trustee’s compensation was approved as fair and reasonable.

Application for a declaration regarding the interpretation of a commercial lease and the tenant’s exercise of an option to renew.

The tenant sought confirmation that he had validly exercised a five‑year renewal option under the lease.

The landlord argued that renewal required prior negotiations, that the tenant had not exercised the option clearly, and that alleged lease defaults disentitled the tenant from renewal.

The court held that the tenant clearly and unequivocally exercised the option and that the lease language requiring negotiations did not constitute a condition precedent.

Alleged defaults were either unsupported or waived by the landlord’s conduct, and therefore did not invalidate the renewal.

Family law trial addressing the date of separation, equalization of net family property, and entitlement to child and spousal support.

The court found the parties separated in February 2009 when the respondent informed the applicant the marriage was over while she was in Tanzania with the children.

Based on incomplete financial disclosure, the court calculated the parties’ net family properties and ordered an equalization payment to the applicant.

The court declined to impute income to the applicant under s.19(1) of the Child Support Guidelines, finding she was not intentionally under‑employed due to caregiving responsibilities and serious health issues.

Spousal support and set‑off child support were ordered, along with payment for extraordinary expenses.

Sentencing following a jury conviction for sexual assault with a weapon, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a child victim aged 12–13.

The offender lured the victim to his home under the pretext of visiting his daughter, exposed her to pornography, used a knife to intimidate her, compelled her to remove her clothing and dance, and sexually touched her.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, citing the vulnerability of the child victim, the use of a weapon, and the offender’s breach of trust as aggravating factors.

The offender also had prior convictions for multiple sexual offences against minors.

Applying the Kienapple principle, the court stayed the sexual interference conviction and imposed custodial sentences on the remaining counts.

The appellant mother appealed an Ontario Court of Justice order granting Crown wardship of her child without access following summary judgment in child protection proceedings.

She argued the motion judge misapprehended the evidence regarding improvements in her parenting, failed to consider extending statutory timelines under the Child and Family Services Act, and gave insufficient weight to her efforts to complete counselling and parenting programs.

The Superior Court held that the motion judge carefully reviewed the evidence and made no palpable and overriding error.

The court found there was no evidence demonstrating that the appellant’s program participation translated into improved parenting capacity and that extending statutory timelines would not be in the child’s best interests.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action alleging that a paediatrician breached the standard of care by failing to conduct follow‑up glucose testing and refer a child to an endocrinologist after a hypoglycaemic episode.

They argued that earlier investigation would have led to a diagnosis of panhypopituitarism and prevented a later hypoglycaemic seizure causing permanent brain injury.

The court considered conflicting expert evidence regarding the appropriate standard of care for paediatricians and whether a single episode of hypoglycaemia required referral or further testing.

The court preferred the evidence of defence experts that the episode was transient and that further investigation was not required absent recurring symptoms.

It also found the plaintiffs failed to establish causation, as it was speculative whether earlier referral would have prevented the later seizure.

Following the breakdown of a marriage, the applicant sought sole custody of three children and child support from the respondent, while the respondent sought continuation of a joint custody arrangement previously ordered by consent.

The court considered the parties’ inability to communicate, the respondent’s inconsistent exercise of parenting time, and the applicant’s role as the primary caregiver, including responsibility for a child with Type 1 diabetes.

Applying the best interests of the children and the principles governing joint custody, the court held that joint custody was inappropriate where the parents lacked effective communication and cooperation.

The court granted the applicant sole custody with structured access to the respondent.

The court declined to impute income to the respondent for child support under s. 19(1)(a) of the Child Support Guidelines due to credible evidence of disability and financial hardship, and expunged arrears while granting leave to renew the support claim if circumstances changed.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms alleging a breach of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

Approximately 26 months had elapsed between arrest and the scheduled trial date on a charge of importing heroin.

Much of the delay occurred while the accused attempted to change counsel, pursued Legal Aid Ontario appeals, and brought two Rowbotham applications to obtain funded counsel.

The court found that the 15½‑month delay associated with securing counsel was neutral and attributable to the accused’s own decisions rather than Crown or institutional misconduct.

Balancing the Morin factors, the court concluded the delay was not unreasonable and declined to stay the proceedings.