Steven K. Stauffer

Following a new trial where the plaintiff was successful in the main action and the third-party claim was dismissed, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff $25,000 in costs, noting the defendant's unreasonable failure to accept a pre-trial offer to settle.

The successful third party was awarded $15,081.60 in costs.

The court considered the defendant's status as a non-profit organization and its partial success in an earlier appeal when reducing the overall costs claimed.

The Ontario Football Conference (OFC) sued the Brampton Minor Football Association (BMFA) for unpaid fees incurred by a football club called the Bears.

The BMFA denied liability, arguing the Bears was a separate entity, and brought a third-party claim against its former president, Ian Smith, alleging he exceeded his authority in guaranteeing the debt.

The court held that the BMFA was liable for the debt based on the indoor management rule, as the OFC dealt in good faith with Smith and was entitled to assume he had authority.

The court dismissed the third-party claim against Smith, finding no evidence he agreed to be personally liable or breached his fiduciary duties, despite a perceived conflict of interest.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment that awarded the respondent contractor payment for construction framing work, including 'extras', and partially allowed the appellants' counterclaim for deficiencies.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge inverted the burden of proof, misapprehended evidence, and made unsupported credibility findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no inversion of the burden of proof and no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual or credibility assessments.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering it to pay $25,000 in unpaid fees to the respondent.

The appellant argued it was denied procedural fairness because the Deputy Judge failed to read its lengthy written closing submissions before rendering the decision, and that the reasons provided were insufficient.

The Divisional Court agreed on both grounds, finding a clear denial of procedural fairness and that the brief reasons provided were incapable of meaningful appellate review.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision which found the leased premises were commercial and exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenant requested an adjournment due to newly retained counsel's scheduling conflict and a planned vacation.

The court granted the adjournment but imposed strict terms due to the tenant's history of delay and failure to pay rent, ordering the release of $40,000 held in trust to the landlord, payment of remaining arrears, ongoing rent, and $5,000 in costs.

The accused was charged with drug trafficking and weapons offences following a traffic stop initiated based on a tip from a confidential informant.

During the stop, the accused was arrested for possession of a prohibited weapon and subsequently subjected to a roadside strip search, which yielded cocaine.

The accused brought an application to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging breaches of his ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) rights.

The court found that while the initial detention and arrest were lawful, the roadside strip search violated s. 8, and the police breached ss. 10(a) and 10(b) by failing to promptly advise the accused of the reasons for his detention and delaying his access to counsel.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The evidence was excluded, and the accused was acquitted.

Sentencing for repeated sexual abuse of three children, including two step-daughters and a niece, over an extended period while the offender stood in a position of trust.

The court applied the child-sexual-abuse sentencing guidance emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, and treated multiple victims, oral sex, grooming, and sustained abuse as serious aggravating features.

Although the offender had no criminal record and faced likely deportation, the court held a penitentiary term remained necessary and imposed a global sentence of five years after a slight reduction and credit for pre-sentence custody.

DNA, sex offender registration, and no-contact orders were made, but a s. 161 prohibition order was declined.

The Crown appealed a 5.5-month conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for the sexual assault of an intoxicated, sleeping complainant.

The trial judge had imposed the conditional sentence largely to avoid collateral immigration consequences that would trigger the respondent's deportation.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in principle by failing to properly weigh deterrence and denunciation, and by using immigration consequences to impose a sentence outside the appropriate range.

The sentence was varied to 5.5 months of incarceration, though the respondent was not required to serve further time as the conditional sentence had already been completed.

The landlord appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering the return of an $18,984 security deposit to the tenant after the leased commercial premises were destroyed by fire.

The landlord attempted to raise new arguments on appeal that the lease continued despite the fire, which the court rejected due to prejudice and lack of an evidentiary record.

The court upheld the trial judge's finding that the tenant did not cause the fire and was not responsible under the lease for the landlord's debris removal costs.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.