Stephen J. Wojciechowski

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for $30,000 against the respondents.

The appellant sought indemnification for legal costs incurred in defending a separate, unrelated lawsuit, relying on a Memorandum of Settlement and release signed with the respondents.

He also claimed damages for negligence and mental distress.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the principles of contract interpretation from Sattva and Corner Brook to conclude the indemnity did not cover unforeseeable future claims.

The court also upheld the trial judge's dismissal of the negligence claim due to a lack of evidence establishing a standard of care, and found no error in the discretionary assessment of costs.

The applicant, The Corporation of the Township of Nipigon, sought a declaration that its Municipal Accommodation Tax By-law 1940 was properly enacted and that the respondents were in contravention of its terms.

The applicant also sought payment of outstanding municipal accommodation tax amounts.

The respondents argued that they should be compensated for the costs of collecting and remitting the tax.

The court found that the by-law was properly enacted pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001, and that no statutory provision required the municipality to compensate businesses for tax collection efforts.

The court granted the application and ordered the respondents to pay the outstanding amounts plus costs.

In a family law matter arising from the breakdown of a relationship, the respondent sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $28,800.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant submitted that each party should bear their own costs, or alternatively, that the respondent should pay costs to the applicant in the amount of $11,603.97 relating solely to the Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution process.

The court found that most outstanding issues were resolved through Minutes of Settlement with divided success between the parties.

The court declined to award costs, finding that it was unable to determine that one party was clearly successful or that one party clearly capitulated to the opposing party's position.

This is a costs decision following the dismissal of a summary judgment motion brought by the defendant school board.

The plaintiff sought costs of $22,322.50 on a partial indemnity basis or $34,446.63 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendant argued for costs of $10,551.37 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court awarded costs of $14,000 all-inclusive on a partial indemnity basis, considering the plaintiff's success, the applicable hourly rates in the Northwest Region, and the factors set out in the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter in connection with the death of Adrian Richardson, who was shot during a home invasion and robbery on May 2, 2022.

The accused drove the perpetrators to and from the victim's residence, knowing that violence was a distinct possibility.

The court accepted a joint submission and imposed a sentence of four years imprisonment with enhanced pre-sentence custody credits, resulting in an effective sentence of 211 days, followed by 12 months probation, a lifetime firearms prohibition, and a victim fine surcharge.

The court sentenced Telique Ricketts for manslaughter with a firearm, following a guilty plea entered mid-trial for the killing of Adrian Richardson during a planned home invasion and robbery.

The decision reviews the facts, victim impact, aggravating and mitigating factors, and relevant case law, ultimately imposing a sentence of 11 years, reduced to 6 years and 146 days after credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court also imposed a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The defendant, Lakehead District School Board, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff’s action on the basis of res judicata, cause of action estoppel, and abuse of process.

The plaintiff, David Brian Cavner, alleged he was sexually assaulted by a teacher in the 1960s and had previously brought a claim against the teacher, which was administratively dismissed for delay.

The Board argued that the plaintiff should not be able to bring a new claim against it based on the same facts.

The court found that the Board and the teacher were distinct parties, and that the previous dismissal was not an adjudication on the merits.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, allowing the plaintiff’s claim to proceed.

This endorsement resolves outstanding property issues between Katherine Britton and Nicholas Leigh following their separation.

The court determined entitlement to various personal property items, generally awarding items to the party with a receipt or clear evidence of ownership.

Items without clear ownership were placed in a "Coin Toss Pile" to be distributed by alternating selection after a coin toss.

The decision also addresses procedures for lost, destroyed, or loaned items and outlines compensation if a party can prove intentional loss or destruction by the other party.

During a case management conference, the applicant, BridgePoint Financial Services Limited Partnership I, argued that its application to determine whether its loan agreements with the respondent, Rudolf Steinberg, applied to his accident benefits settlement was moot.

BridgePoint contended that outstanding legal fees, which had priority, exceeded the funds held in court, leaving nothing for BridgePoint.

The court found that because a portion of the legal fees had already been paid, up to $184,983.13 might remain available, meaning the application was not moot.

Consequently, the court ordered that the application proceed to a hearing and directed that a related Toronto action be transferred to Thunder Bay to be case managed together.

The decision addresses a motion by The Corporation of the Town of Atikokan to set aside a noting in default in a civil action brought by Melissa Bates regarding property flooding.

The court reviews the procedural history, the conduct of the parties, and the applicable legal principles under Rule 19.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court finds that, although Atikokan’s delay in delivering its Statement of Defence was unwarranted, the litigation was progressing and the delay did not fundamentally prejudice the plaintiff.

The court grants the motion, sets aside the noting in default, and provides directions regarding costs.

The court considered whether Brian Buday was gifted a property by his late father, Paul Buday, despite the absence of formal transfer documentation.

The court reviewed the evidence of improvements made by Brian Buday, the intentions of Paul Buday, and the positions of other interested parties, including Glen Buday and government respondents with tax claims.

Applying the law of inter vivos gifts and the presumption of resulting trust, the court found that the property was indeed gifted to Brian Buday in 1989 and ordered that it be vested in his name.

The decision concerns the conviction of Ja’Coy Stevenson for possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and several firearm offences.

The court found that Stevenson and Boris Kljujic were running a drug trafficking operation out of a Thunder Bay apartment, based on circumstantial evidence including the presence of large quantities of drugs, cash, drug paraphernalia, and a loaded firearm.

The court rejected the defence that Stevenson was merely a user, finding the only reasonable inference was that he was a trafficker with constructive possession of the drugs and firearm.

The court sentenced Daniel Keefe to life imprisonment with parole ineligibility for 10 years after a jury found him guilty of second degree murder.

The decision reviews the facts of the offence, the impact on the victim’s family, the legal parameters for sentencing, and the positions of Crown and defence.

The court accepted a joint submission for the minimum period of parole ineligibility, citing the offender’s youth, lack of criminal record, and absence of aggravating factors.

Ancillary orders were also imposed, including a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and non-communication orders.

This endorsement addresses the process for resolving outstanding property issues between the parties following a Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) hearing.

The court sets out a step-by-step procedure for the parties to complete a chart detailing disputed assets, their value, and supporting evidence, with the aim of facilitating a final decision on division of property.

The approach emphasizes clarity, fairness, and finality, including a coin toss mechanism for assets that cannot be attributed to either party.

This addendum addresses the transition period for temporary parenting time and child support following the separation of Daniel Adam Wojick and Lindsay Kristin Wojick.

The court clarifies the implementation of a 50/50 parenting schedule and considers the respondent’s proposed transitional arrangements, ultimately affirming the original decision for an earlier transition to equal parenting time.

This endorsement addresses outstanding issues between Katherine Britton and Nicholas Leigh following the breakdown of their relationship, including parenting matters for their child, Eleanor, and division of property.

The parties participated in a Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) hearing, resolved several issues, and set out procedures for travel, childcare, and communication.

Remaining property issues are to be discussed at a continuation of the JDR.

The applicant, Daniel Adam Wojick, sought a temporary order for parenting time and support regarding the parties' two children.

The court reviewed the evidence of both parties, the proposed parenting schedules, and the best interests of the children, ultimately adopting a transition plan leading to a 50/50 shared parenting arrangement.

The decision also set out temporary child support obligations for both parties, based on their respective incomes and the evolving parenting schedule.

The applicant, Joe Hamrak, sought directions regarding the validity of two wills made by the deceased, John Joseph Hamrak.

The court found that the 2022 Will was valid and the 2023 Will invalid due to the testator's lack of testamentary capacity at the time of the latter's execution.

The court also addressed the loss of the original 2022 Will, the improper transfer of funds, and the allocation of costs from the estate.

This decision concerns a multi-count fraud prosecution against Richard Belbas, who was tried on 21 counts arising from four indictments.

The court reviews the elements of criminal fraud, the assessment of credibility, and the application of the law to a series of factual scenarios involving alleged fraudulent contracting and business practices.

The court finds Belbas guilty on multiple counts of fraud over and under $5,000, as well as breach of probation, and acquits on several counts where the evidence did not meet the threshold for conviction.

The court granted default judgment in favour of Dawn Christine Spellman against her brother, Steven Mark Spellman, for breach of fiduciary duty as administrator of their late father's estate.

The decision details Steven's misappropriation of estate assets, failure to account, and disregard for court orders, resulting in an award of general and punitive damages, as well as costs, to Dawn.

The court also ordered that Steven's share of their mother's estate be used to satisfy the judgment.