Stephen T. Bale

The accused, Anden Alexander, applied under section 24(2) of the Charter to exclude firearm evidence, alleging that his initial traffic stop was the result of racial profiling and constituted arbitrary detention.

He further argued that his subsequent arrest for flight from police and the warrantless searches of his person and vehicle were unlawful.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that the police officers had valid Highway Traffic Act grounds for the stop based on database searches conducted prior to the detention.

Consequently, the court held that there was no racial profiling or arbitrary detention, the subsequent arrest and searches were lawful, and the application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

This decision concerns consolidated applications regarding a failed assignment agreement for a pre-construction condominium unit.

The assignees (Trinh) sought the return of their deposit, arguing the agreement was null and void due to the assignor's (2627641 Ontario Inc.) failure to obtain the vendor's consent within the stipulated time.

The assignor counter-argued that the assignees breached the agreement by failing to pay a final deposit, which they claimed was a prerequisite for vendor consent.

The court found that the assignees were not required to pay the final deposit without the vendor's acceptance of the assignment and that the assignor failed to provide clear information regarding uncapped development charges, which was a condition for the assignees.

The court concluded that the assignment agreement became null and void due to the assignor's failure to secure vendor approval, entitling the assignees to the return of their deposit and costs.

The appellant supplier claimed it was owed $600,000 for building materials and sought a declaration that the proceeds of the sale of a model home were held in trust under the Construction Act.

The motion judge ordered only a portion of the sale proceeds to be held in court under Rule 45.02, finding a serious issue to be tried only for the materials supplied to that specific home.

The appellant appealed, arguing the order was final.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, holding that the order was interlocutory because it did not finally determine the substantive rights of the parties regarding the scope of the trust.

The appellants appealed an order requiring them to purchase the respondent's minority shares in a corporation.

The motion judge made the order to advance the litigation, finding that both parties ultimately wanted a share buyout.

The appellants argued they were denied procedural fairness because the issue of a compelled share purchase was not formally before the motion judge, and that a finding of oppression was required first.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants had notice of the argument, suffered no prejudice, and that the court had broad discretion under the Business Corporations Act to order a share purchase without a finding of oppression.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision striking a one-day suspension given to a union representative for unprofessional conduct during and after a termination meeting.

The employer argued the arbitration was procedurally unfair and the arbitrator applied the wrong legal test.

The Divisional Court found that while the arbitrator's refusal to hear a preliminary objection regarding evidence admissibility breached procedural fairness, the outcome of a new hearing would inevitably be the same.

The arbitrator had accepted the employer's evidence regarding the conduct but correctly applied the legal test protecting union representatives from discipline unless their conduct is malicious, knowingly false, or intimidating.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Attorney General for Ontario applied for certiorari and mandamus to quash a provincial court judge's refusal to issue a general warrant and assistance order.

The police sought to use the general warrant to seize cryptocurrency held on a third-party exchange (Binance) by compelling the exchange to transfer the funds to a police-controlled wallet.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding that the general warrant was not available because other provisions in the Criminal Code, specifically Part XII.2 relating to digital assets warrants and restraint orders, provide a substantive equivalent for seizing such assets.

The accused was tried on two counts of possessing child pornography and one count of accessing child pornography.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly possessed child pornography stored on his laptop, phone, and USB drives, rejecting alternative theories that roommates may have downloaded or viewed the material.

The court also held that a three-foot child-like sex doll was an 'other visual representation' meeting the definition of child pornography under s. 163.1(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

The accessing count failed because the Crown conceded there was no evidence that child pornography had been accessed in Ontario during the charged period.

This decision addresses costs arising from an application to appoint an arbitrator in a dispute over a new home purchase agreement.

The applicants, purchasers, sought an arbitrator after alleging the vendor (respondent) breached the agreement and they terminated it.

The respondent initially opposed arbitration but later agreed after the applicants' termination notice.

The court had previously ruled in favor of the applicants' choice of arbitrator but reserved on costs.

This decision awards costs to the respondent for the period prior to the applicants' termination notice, finding that the arbitration clause, which related to termination disputes, was not triggered until actual termination occurred.

The court found the applicants' interpretation of the arbitration agreement did not justify enhanced costs, and awarded a net amount of $7,500 in costs to the respondent.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff sought damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation after a farmhouse on a property purchased from the defendants was destroyed by fire before closing.

The court found no contractual obligation for the defendants to insure the property, rebuild the farmhouse, or abate the purchase price, relying on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Wile v. Cook.

The misrepresentation claim lacked sufficient particulars as required by Rule 25.06(8).

The statement of claim was struck out, but with leave to amend.

The plaintiff corporation alleged it was defrauded by its former principal, Zaza, who caused it to loan funds to another corporation he controlled, which then distributed the funds to family and friends before bankruptcy.

The defendants (excluding the bankrupt corporation) moved for judgment dismissing the action, arguing it was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the limitation period did not begin until January 6, 2021, when Susan Barrett took control of the plaintiff corporation.

Prior to that date, the plaintiff corporation had no officers or directors whose knowledge could be attributed to it, and thus it was not capable of discovering the claim or exercising reasonable diligence.

The action involved alleged breaches of agreements.

The defendants moved to dismiss or permanently stay the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction and on forum non conveniens grounds, and to strike the statement of claim.

The plaintiff cross-moved for default judgment.

The court set aside the noting in default for most defendants and service for two, staying the action against those two.

However, the court found jurisdiction over the main defendants based on presumptive connecting factors and a valid forum selection clause, dismissing their motion to stay.

The court largely upheld the statement of claim, striking only two paragraphs, but ordered the plaintiff to add the contracting corporation as a proper plaintiff, staying the action until then.

The plaintiff, injured in an automobile accident, settled with the at-fault driver and then claimed the balance of her damages from her underinsured motorist protection insurer, Coseco Insurance Company.

Coseco moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court dismissed Coseco's motion, finding that earlier communications from the plaintiff's counsel were merely notice of an intended claim, not a "demand for indemnification" that would trigger the limitation period.

The limitation period was held to have commenced only after a formal request for indemnification with full particulars was submitted.

This decision addresses the defendants' requests for damages and full indemnity costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's defamation actions under anti-SLAPP provisions (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act).

The court dismissed the damages claim, finding no bad faith or improper purpose by the plaintiff, and that alleged harm was not directly caused by the proceedings.

However, the court awarded full indemnity costs to the defendants, Matthew Bergman ($50,000) and Gregory Swain ($11,690.56), as statutorily presumed.

The appellant entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a property and paid a $40,000 deposit.

The transaction failed to close because the appellant could not secure financing.

The appellant sought the return of the deposit, arguing there was an oral agreement that it would be refunded if the sale failed.

The application judge dismissed the application, applying the parol evidence rule to exclude the oral agreement and finding no grounds for relief from forfeiture.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that the written contract governed and that the deposit forfeiture was not unconscionable.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that declined to compress the wage grid for registered nurses and nurse practitioners.

The union argued the existing grid was discriminatory and that correcting it was exempt from the 1% compensation cap under Bill 124.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably concluded that the interest arbitration process was not the appropriate forum to make the necessary adjudicative findings of specific Human Rights Code breaches by 131 separate employers, nor to usurp the ongoing pay equity process.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the orders of Daley J. dated October 12, 2021, and December 21, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $5,000, payable by the moving parties David Atsushi Ohashi and Pamela Gloria Ohashi.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Daley J. dated October 21, 2021, and December 21, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated June 7, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the respondent.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated July 6, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed in the amount of $5,000.

The landlord applied to the Landlord and Tenant Board to terminate the tenancy and evict the tenant for seriously impairing safety by covering smoke detectors.

The LTB issued an eviction order following a hearing the tenant did not attend.

The tenant's request for review was dismissed.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, it was revealed that the LTB had no record confirming service of the Notice of Hearing on the parties.

The court found the tenant was denied procedural fairness, allowed the appeal, and set aside the eviction order.

Given the tenant's failure to pay rent since 2019, the court directed the LTB to hold an expedited consolidated hearing for all pending applications between the parties.