Stephen J. Wojciechowski

The applicant, a litigation lender, sought a determination that its loan agreement with the respondent secured not only the proceeds of the respondent's tort action, but also the $1.25 million settlement of his statutory accident benefits (SABS) claim.

The tort action had been dismissed without any payout.

Applying principles of contractual interpretation and the doctrine of contra proferentem, the court found that the term 'Settlement Funds' in the loan agreement was restricted to monies paid to resolve the tort action.

The court noted that the lender had drafted the agreement specifically referencing the tort action but omitting any reference to the SABS claim, despite having reviewed the SABS file prior to drafting.

The application was dismissed, and the court held that the lender had no security interest in the SABS settlement funds.

The applicant, Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA), brought an application to quash a General Warrant and Assistance Order that authorized the Ontario Provincial Police to randomly search passenger baggage at the Thunder Bay International Airport for evidence of drug trafficking and money laundering over a 30-day period.

The Assistance Order compelled CATSA employees to notify police if they discovered controlled substances or large sums of currency during routine security screening.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application and struck out the orders.

The court held that while CATSA lacked standing to raise a section 8 Charter challenge, the General Warrant was invalid under section 487.01 of the Criminal Code because it lacked specificity and reasonable grounds, amounting to an unauthorized fishing expedition.

Consequently, the Assistance Order issued under section 487.02 could not stand.

The accused, charged with drug trafficking, applied to have his trial proceed virtually because his counsel, located out of town, had childcare issues.

The Crown opposed the accused appearing virtually but did not oppose counsel doing so.

The court held that under s. 715.233 of the Criminal Code, the accused cannot appear virtually without Crown consent.

Furthermore, applying the factors in s. 715.23, the court found that the serious nature of the charges and the lack of evidence regarding the accused's personal circumstances weighed against a virtual trial.

The application was dismissed regarding the accused, who must attend in person, but granted for counsel.

The accused pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle after rear-ending another tractor trailer, which subsequently collided head-on with a third vehicle, resulting in a fatality.

The parties agreed the accused's driving did not cause the fatality.

The Crown sought a conviction, a $3,000 fine, and a 2-year driving prohibition.

The defence sought an absolute discharge, arguing a conviction would result in the accused's automatic deportation, a disproportionate collateral consequence.

The court granted an absolute discharge, imposing an 8-year driving prohibition and ordering $10,000 in restitution, finding that deportation would be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the accused's moral blameworthiness.

The applicant father and respondent mother, both self-represented, proceeded to trial to resolve issues of parenting, child support, property equalization, and divorce.

The father sought primary residence and decision-making authority, citing the mother's mental health struggles, alleged substance abuse, and inconsistent exercise of parenting time.

The mother sought a return to a shared parenting schedule but failed to comply with trial management directions or provide medical evidence supporting her capacity.

The court awarded primary residence and decision-making to the father, with a graduated weekend parenting schedule for the mother to slowly reintroduce overnight visits.

The mother was ordered to pay child support based on her ODSP income, while the father's property claim was dismissed after being abandoned at trial.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash an order of the Ontario Court of Justice compelling his attendance for a show cause hearing regarding a common law peace bond.

The Crown had previously directed a stay of proceedings on all drug trafficking charges against the applicant pursuant to section 579 of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the entry of a section 579 stay completely extinguishes the court's jurisdiction over the accused, precluding any residual common law power to impose a peace bond.

The application was granted and the lower court's order was quashed.

The applicants brought an urgent motion seeking interim co-guardianship of their father and the appointment of section 3 counsel.

The court previously directed the Public Guardian and Trustee to appoint section 3 counsel.

On the continuation of the motion, the court granted certain relief on consent, including the provision of medical records and powers of attorney.

However, the court declined to order a capacity assessment or grant the applicants unfettered access to the father's medical providers until the newly appointed section 3 counsel had an opportunity to receive instructions and make submissions on his behalf.

The applicant mother brought a motion for the partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The respondent father, who remained in the home while the applicant and children lived in a single bedroom elsewhere, failed to pay the mortgage, resulting in significant arrears.

The respondent did not file responding materials or participate in the hearing.

The court granted the motion, finding no malicious intent by the applicant, no prejudice to future family law claims, and that the sale was an economic necessity in the best interests of the family.

The applicants brought an urgent motion seeking to be appointed as interim co-guardians for the property and personal care of their father, and for the appointment of section 3 counsel to represent him in a pending guardianship application.

The applicants alleged that their brother, who holds powers of attorney, was mismanaging their father's care and isolating him.

The court found no immediate urgency regarding the father's health or care to justify altering the status quo on an urgent basis.

However, with the consent of all parties, the court directed the Public Guardian and Trustee to arrange legal representation for the father under section 3 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's Answer due to his failure to provide meaningful financial disclosure despite repeated requests and a prior court order.

The court found that the respondent had ignored his disclosure obligations but declined to strike the Answer at this stage.

Instead, the court appointed itself as case management judge, imposed a strict timetable for disclosure and questioning, and awarded costs of $7,500 to the applicant.

The Crown brought a Gardiner application to establish disputed aggravating facts for the sentencing of the accused, who had pleaded guilty to attempted murder, aggravated assault, and other offences following a police pursuit.

The court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was hiding in the back seat at a roadblock or that he was hitchhiking to evade police prior to his surrender.

However, the court accepted the Crown's evidence regarding the positioning of the firearm when the accused shot at a police officer during the pursuit.

The offender was found guilty of 17 counts of fraud and one count of breaching probation, relating to unfulfilled promises to supply sea cans, saunas, and construction services.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the offender's extensive criminal record for similar fraudulent activities.

Applying the totality principle, the court grouped the offences by category and imposed consecutive sentences for each category, resulting in a global sentence of 36 months' imprisonment, alongside orders for restitution and a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary his interim child support obligations, seeking a reduction due to his inability to work for medical reasons.

He also sought relief from garnishment proceedings and orders regarding joint debts.

The court found that a 30% reduction in income due to short-term disability constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court ordered a reduction in interim child support contingent upon the respondent providing confirmation of his receipt of short-term disability benefits.

The court declined to interfere with garnishment proceedings for outstanding legal costs, but noted the applicant's undertaking to cease child support garnishment upon confirmation of the variation.

The parties consented to make equal payments towards a joint line of credit.

The accused pleaded guilty to second degree murder for his role in a fatal attack on the victim.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted that the period of parole ineligibility should be set at the statutory minimum of 10 years.

The court considered the accused's Indigenous background, Gladue factors, his guilty plea, and his lesser role compared to his co-accused brother.

Applying the Anthony-Cook test, the court accepted the joint submission and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 10 years.

In a criminal trial concerning an accused’s hidden-camera recording of a child, the court addressed whether the video met the definition of child pornography under s. 163.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court found the Crown had not proven explicit sexual activity under s. 163.1(1)(a)(i), but held the dominant characteristic of the video was depiction of the child’s sexual organs or anal region for a sexual purpose under s. 163.1(1)(a)(ii).

Applying the objective, contextual framework from appellate jurisprudence, the court concluded the recording was likely to stimulate sexual interest in some viewers.

The accused was found guilty of making child pornography contrary to s. 163.1(2) for the impugned period, with sentencing submissions adjourned.

In a standalone costs decision following a refusals motion and an abuse of process motion, the court assessed entitlement and quantum under Rule 57.01.

The moving parties were found to have been largely successful on the refusals motion and wholly successful on the abuse of process motion that resulted in dismissal of a duplicative application.

The responding parties disputed costs submissions but did not challenge rates or time through a responding bill of costs or costs outline.

Applying proportionality and the Rule 57.01 factors, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable within 60 days.

The third parties brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of the defendant's third party claim against them in a negligence action arising from a cottage fire allegedly caused by a firepit.

Applying the factors from Malik v. Attia, 2020 ONCA 787, the court declined to permit the partial summary judgment motion to proceed.

The court found that proceeding with the motion would not reduce judicial resources already allocated for the upcoming trial, the trial was less than four months away, and there was a real risk of inconsistent findings between the motion and trial given that the third parties' liability was dependent upon causation issues to be determined in the main action.

The respondent in a pending application sought an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for December 4-5, 2025, claiming he had not received his complete client file from former counsel, was catastrophically impaired, and that the applicant had recently served a revised factum.

The court found the adjournment request unreasonable, noting the matter had been extensively case managed for over a year, the respondent had participated in scheduling the hearing dates, had failed to file any responding materials despite earlier deadlines, and had only formally requested his client file one week before the hearing.

The revised factum contained only minor administrative updates.

The adjournment was denied and the application was ordered to proceed as scheduled.

The plaintiff brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a determination that the commissioning stage of a contract for the design, manufacture and supply of aggregate processing equipment had been completed, thereby entitling it to payment of the final invoice.

The defendant opposed the motion and advanced a substantial counterclaim alleging negligence and breach of contract.

The court conducted a case management conference to triage the motion in accordance with the Malik v. Attia framework, which requires consideration of whether partial summary judgment would achieve proportionate, timely, and affordable justice.

The court declined to permit the partial summary judgment motion to proceed, finding that the issues were too intertwined and that determining the commissioning stage in isolation would not advance the litigation in an abbreviated fashion.

The applicant, Hornepayne First Nation, sought relief against the respondents (the Joint Appointee under a Gaming Revenue Sharing and Financial Agreement) for alleged breaches of confidentiality obligations.

The applicant claimed that the respondents breached their duty to safeguard and not disclose confidential financial records.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant itself breached the terms of the agreement by sending documents directly to the Joint Appointee contrary to the prescribed procedure, and that the respondents properly forwarded the documents to Ontario First Nations (2008) Limited Partnership as required by the agreement.

The court awarded costs to the respondents.