Stephen J. Wojciechowski

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.