Spencer Nicholson

The accused was stopped at a RIDE program where an officer observed a used bong within reach in the vehicle.

The officer conducted a search under the Cannabis Control Act, locating drugs, cash, and weapons.

The accused brought a pre-trial Charter application alleging breaches of his s. 8 and s. 10(b) rights.

The court found no s. 8 breach, as the used bong provided reasonable grounds for the search.

While the court found a s. 10(b) breach due to delayed access to counsel, it declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding the breach was not serious and the evidence was highly reliable and essential to the prosecution.

The mother brought a motion to dismiss the father's new application for access under the Hague Convention, arguing it was an abuse of process and an attempt to relitigate issues already decided in a previous trial.

The court agreed, finding the new application was a vexatious attempt to relitigate the concluded Hague Convention trial, which was currently under appeal.

The court dismissed the father's application as an abuse of process under Rule 16(12) of the Family Law Rules.

However, the court declined to declare the father a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, noting such a declaration requires a formal application rather than a motion.

MediPharm brought an action against Hexo for unpaid invoices totaling $9,802,032.78 under a cannabis resin supply agreement.

Hexo counterclaimed against MediPharm for breach of contract and bad faith, and against Peter Hwang, a former director of the acquired company, for breach of fiduciary duty.

MediPharm and Hwang brought motions for summary judgment.

The court granted the motions, finding no genuine issue for trial.

Hexo failed to adduce evidence of bad faith by MediPharm or self-dealing by Hwang, whose decisions were protected by the business judgment rule.

Hexo was ordered to pay the outstanding invoices.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial, the court found the accused guilty of fraud over $5,000 and possession of property obtained by crime arising from a multi-year scheme targeting Canada Post.

The evidence showed that fictitious businesses across Canada were created to obtain postal products on credit, have them shipped to virtual mailbox locations in southwestern Ontario, and then resell stamps at a discount.

Applying the fraud elements from Theroux and the circumstantial evidence approach in Villaroman, the court held that computer records, mailbox evidence, surveillance, IP data, invoices, and related documents proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused orchestrated the scheme and never intended to pay.

The court accepted that Canada Post was deprived of $234,763.31 and rejected the defence theory of legitimate business activity.

This motion for summary judgment concerned a failed real estate transaction where the buyer, Kandlproperties Inc., sought specific performance or damages from the seller, Big Bang Consulting Inc. The central issues were whether a text message constituted valid written notice to extend the closing date and the appropriate remedy.

The court found that the text message validly extended the closing date, making the seller, Big Bang, in breach of the agreement.

However, specific performance was denied as the property was not deemed unique, and damages were found to be an adequate remedy.

Damages were assessed based on the fair market value of the property at the date of breach.

This case concerns an application for dependant's relief under the Succession Law Reform Act by a common-law spouse against the intestate estate of her deceased partner.

The deceased's adult daughter had died after him, and her estate trustee claimed the estate under intestacy rules to support the daughter's three young children.

The court determined that the common-law spouse was the sole dependant under the Act, as the adult daughter did not meet the criteria for dependency.

Finding that the deceased had not made adequate provision for the spouse's support, the court held that her legal and moral claims took precedence over the daughter's intestacy claim.

The common-law spouse was awarded the entire remaining balance of the estate.

This decision concerns a motion for certification of a class action following a fire in an apartment building.

The court addressed preliminary issues of jurisdiction (Superior Court vs. Landlord and Tenant Board), admissibility of an expert report, and the involvement of third parties.

The court found that the Superior Court had jurisdiction because the total amount claimed exceeded the LTB's monetary limit, even if individual claims might be smaller.

The expert report was deemed admissible for certification purposes.

The class action was certified, with modifications to the proposed class definition and common issues.

Specifically, the court removed references to "contractors" and "subcontractors" from common issues related to the Third Parties, as no direct cause of action was pleaded against them by the plaintiffs.

The court emphasized access to justice and behaviour modification as key factors favoring certification.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their medical malpractice Statement of Claim to substitute Dr. Renato Natale for the pseudonym 'Dr. John/Jane Doe Gynecological Attending'.

The motion was brought after the presumptive expiry of the limitation period.

The court applied the 'litigation finger' test and found that a person with knowledge of the facts would be aware of the true identity of the misnamed defendant from reading the pleading.

Finding no undue prejudice to the proposed defendant, the court exercised its discretion to grant the amendment.

The appellant appealed her summary conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample.

At the police station, after speaking with duty counsel, the appellant refused to leave her cell and began speaking only in French, despite having communicated in English previously.

The trial judge found she was 'playing games' and convicted her.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's credibility findings and conclusion that the refusal was unequivocal were supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg.

He argued the trial judge erred in her s. 24(2) Charter analysis by admitting breath sample evidence despite finding breaches of his ss. 8, 9, and 10(a) rights, and that the breath technician's certificate was defective.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's Grant analysis was adequate and entitled to deference, as the breaches were not serious and the admission of evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court also held that the certificate's deficiencies could not be raised for the first time on appeal and were cured by other evidence at trial.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased parenting time, and the respondent mother brought a cross-motion for a declaration of non-parentage, arguing the applicant was merely a sperm donor.

The court found that because there was no written pre-conception agreement as contemplated by the Children's Law Reform Act, the conflicting evidence regarding the parties' oral agreement created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

Both motions were dismissed, maintaining the status quo for parenting time to ensure stability for the child pending a final determination.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve an $8.5 million settlement for a plaintiff who suffered a catastrophic brain injury in a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs also sought a sealing order over the motion materials and approval of a contingency fee agreement.

The court denied the sealing order, finding no serious risk to an important public interest under the Sherman Estate test.

The court approved the settlement amount as reasonable and in the best interests of the plaintiff.

However, the court found the proposed legal fees of over $1.8 million to be unreasonable given the minimal risk involved, and reduced the approved fees to $1,431,500.

The estate trustees brought an application seeking the court's opinion on whether life insurance proceeds payable to private corporations owned by the deceased should be included in the value of the shares for estate administration tax purposes.

The Minister brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing that s. 29.1 of the Retail Sales Tax Act, incorporated by the Estate Administration Tax Act, prohibits such applications.

The court agreed, finding that the legislative scheme requires taxpayers to follow the statutory assessment, objection, and appeal process rather than seeking advance tax rulings from the court.

The Minister's motion was granted and the application was dismissed.

The applicants, purchasers of pre-construction residential units, sought a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) after the respondent vendors terminated the agreements of purchase and sale, relying on an early termination condition, and subsequently offered the units at a 25% price increase.

The respondents argued the court lacked jurisdiction due to a mandatory arbitration clause in the Tarion Warranty.

The court held it retained jurisdiction to issue a CPL under the Courts of Justice Act despite the arbitration clause.

The court granted the CPL, finding a triable issue regarding the respondents' reliance on the early termination condition and concluding that damages might not be an adequate remedy given the unique location and advantageous pricing of the units in a rapidly rising real estate market.

The appellant insurer appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its motion to set aside a default judgment.

The insurer had been served with the statement of claim, but due to inadvertence by an employee, it was not forwarded to the appropriate claims adjuster.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Deputy Judge erred in principle by applying too stringent an interpretation of 'reasonable explanation' and failing to apply the test flexibly.

The default judgment was set aside to allow the matter to be determined on its merits.

The applicant sought an urgent injunction to prevent the respondent physician from performing an apnea test on the patient, who had suffered a severe brain injury, to determine neurological death.

The patient's mother, acting as substitute decision-maker, refused consent for the test and applied to the Consent and Capacity Board to determine if the test constituted 'treatment' under the Health Care Consent Act.

The physician argued the test was an assessment not requiring consent and that the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The court granted the injunction, holding that the Board is the appropriate body to determine at first instance whether an apnea test constitutes 'treatment' requiring consent under the Act, and that the RJR-MacDonald test for an interim injunction was met.

The applicant father sought to rectify a Declaration of Trust concerning a 100-acre farm, arguing that he and his deceased son were mistakenly reversed as 'Trustee' and 'Beneficiary' by the drafting lawyer.

The respondent widow, acting as estate trustee, brought a cross-application to uphold a severance of the joint tenancy she executed under a power of attorney before the son's death.

The court applied the Fairmont Hotels test and found a mutual mistake, rectifying the Declaration of Trust to show the father as the beneficiary.

Consequently, the court set aside the severance of the joint tenancy and ordered the land registry rectified to show the father as the sole owner by right of survivorship.

The Crown applied under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for an order permitting the adult complainant in a sexual assault trial to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV).

The court reviewed a videotaped statement of the complainant and considered the factors under s. 486.2(3).

The court found that while the complainant could likely testify in the courtroom, permitting her to testify via CCTV would facilitate the giving of a full and candid account.

The application was granted.

The plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident case brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting backlog of cases in the Southwest Region.

The trial was scheduled for January 2022.

The court noted the unprecedented crisis in the civil justice system and the need to prioritize criminal and family matters.

To prevent the case from becoming stale and to assist the administration of justice, the court provisionally struck the jury notice, allowing the case to proceed as a non-jury trial unless civil jury trials could be accommodated at the time of trial.

The defendant in a slip and fall action brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend a second independent medical examination with an orthopaedic surgeon.

The defendant had previously arranged an examination with a physiatrist, who provided a report.

After the plaintiff served an expert report from an orthopaedic surgeon, the defendant sought a matching report.

The court applied the Bonello factors and dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant had an opportunity to fairly investigate the injuries with its first expert and was not entitled to a second examination simply to obtain a more favourable opinion or a matching specialty.