Susan Vella

The Crown appealed a summary conviction acquittal for an "over 80" impaired driving charge.

The trial judge had excluded the breathalyzer readings under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding a s. 10(b) breach because police did not let the respondent call his sister before the test.

The summary conviction appeal judge allowed the appeal, holding that the right to counsel does not extend to non-lawyers unless the detainee specifically requests to call them to locate a lawyer.

Since the respondent did not state this purpose, no implementational duty was triggered.

A new trial was ordered.

In a family law trial, the applicant sought equalization of net family property and damages for the tort of intimate partner violence.

The court resolved property valuation disputes, including valuing the respondent's extensive gun collection and excluding a property held in resulting trust.

Applying the newly recognized tort of intimate partner violence, the court found the respondent engaged in a decades-long pattern of coercive control, physical abuse, and psychological manipulation.

The court awarded the applicant $400,000 in compensatory damages, $25,000 in punitive damages, and issued a permanent restraining order.

Following a nine-day hybrid trial involving parenting and financial issues, the applicant sought full recovery costs of $301,514.81 alleging bad faith by the respondent.

The respondent argued for divided success and sought partial recovery costs.

The court found divided success on parenting issues but overall success for the applicant on financial issues.

The court held that neither party's conduct met the threshold for bad faith, noting unreasonable behaviour by both.

Considering the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including offers to settle and the respondent's financial circumstances, the court fixed a reduced global costs award of $110,000 to the applicant.

Following a successful motion for a Mareva injunction freezing $20 million of the respondent husband's assets, the applicant wife sought costs on a full recovery basis.

The court found the husband acted in bad faith by failing to make financial disclosure, breaching preservation orders, and hiding assets.

As a result, mandatory full recovery costs were ordered under Rule 24(10).

The court reduced the requested amount of $184,450 to $125,000 to reflect a fair and reasonable amount, noting overstaffing by the wife's legal team.

The responding party was previously found in contempt for failing to secure his equalization and spousal support obligations via life insurance and pension designation for 25 years.

At the sentencing hearing, the court found he had not purged his contempt and continued to make excuses.

The court ordered a penalty of $75,000 enforceable by a Support Deduction Order, a fine of $5,000, directed the release of estate funds held in Australia, and stayed his pending motion to change spousal support until the contempt is purged.

The accused was charged with multiple drug trafficking and possession offences.

He pleaded guilty to four counts of trafficking and one count of possession of proceeds of crime.

The remaining issue at trial was whether he possessed over 300 grams of fentanyl found in a backpack in an apartment for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's access to the apartment, his drug dealing activities with an undercover officer, and the presence of his identification in the backpack.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as implausible and found that the only reasonable inference was that he had knowledge and control of the fentanyl.

The accused was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction acquittal entered after the trial judge denied the Crown's request for an adjournment.

The adjournment was sought on the first and second days of trial due to the sudden and serious illness of the assigned trial Crown.

The trial judge forced the matter on, leading the Crown to call no evidence.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge failed to properly weigh the relevant factors, including the public interest in a trial on the merits and the lack of fault by the Crown.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and the matter remitted for a new trial.

The moving party (former wife) brought a motion for contempt against the responding party (former husband) for failing to secure his equalization and spousal support obligations via life insurance and his pension, as ordered in 1998 and 2000.

The responding party argued the equalization obligation was extinguished by his 2000 assignment in bankruptcy.

The court found that because the responding party failed to comply with his conditional discharge order and the trustee was discharged in 2005, the bankruptcy stay was lifted and the equalization obligation remained enforceable.

Applying the three-part test for civil contempt, the court found the responding party intentionally breached clear and unequivocal court orders and declared him in contempt, ordering him to secure the obligations within 30 days to purge the contempt prior to a sentencing hearing.

The applicant's motion for contempt of court against the respondent was dismissed.

The respondent sought full recovery costs of $61,700, arguing the applicant acted in bad faith by using the contempt motion to intimidate her into changing a final order regarding medical decisions.

The court found the applicant's behaviour unreasonable and motivated by a desire to inflict financial and emotional harm, constituting bad faith under rule 24(10) of the Family Law Rules.

The court fixed costs payable to the respondent on a full recovery basis in the sum of $55,000.

In an uncontested family law trial, the Applicant mother sought orders for divorce, parenting, child support, and a restraining order.

The Respondent father failed to attend.

The court found that the Respondent had engaged in a pattern of family violence, including psychological and physical abuse directed at the child through obsessive cleanliness rituals.

The court awarded the Applicant sole decision-making authority and primary residence.

The Respondent's in-person parenting time was suspended pending proof of his residential address, after which it would be strictly supervised.

Income was imputed to the Respondent for the purpose of retroactive and ongoing child support due to his intentional underemployment.

A restraining order was granted to protect the Applicant, and an anonymity order was issued to protect the child's privacy.

The applicant mother sought a divorce, retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, an equalization payment, and a vesting order for the matrimonial home.

The respondent father's answer regarding financial issues had been struck due to his persistent failure to provide financial disclosure.

Proceeding by way of an uncontested trial, the court drew an adverse inference against the father and imputed his income at $400,000 per year.

The court ordered the father to pay $448,400 in retroactive child support, $479,367 in retroactive spousal support, a $66,417 lump sum for prospective spousal support, and an equalization payment of $503,411.86.

To satisfy the spousal support and equalization obligations, the court granted a vesting order transferring the father's sole title in the matrimonial home to the mother absolutely.

The applicant father moved under Rule 1(8) for a punitive order based on the respondent mother's failure to pay a consent costs order arising from an earlier jurisdiction motion in a family relocation dispute.

Applying the three-step framework for Rule 1(8) relief, the court found a triggering event because the costs order remained unpaid beyond the agreed deadline, but accepted the respondent's evidence that her non-payment was caused by temporary loss of income, efforts to obtain financing, and concrete steps to satisfy the award.

The court held that the respondent's conduct was not egregious, that there was no substantial history of non-compliance with court orders, and that a daily fine would be disproportionate, particularly given the child's circumstances.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to renewal if the costs order remained outstanding, with post-judgment interest left as the adequate present remedy.

On a summary judgment motion arising from a Hague Convention proceeding, the court held that commencing a Hague application for return of children does not amount to attornment to Ontario jurisdiction for distinct divorce and corollary relief claims added by the responding party.

The court recognized a Costa Rica divorce judgment under the common law framework preserved by s. 22(3) of the Divorce Act and rejected an argument that recognition should be denied for unfair forum shopping.

Although Ontario retained jurisdiction simpliciter over equalization and property issues because Ontario assets remained and the foreign court had not finally quantified equalization, the court declined to exercise that jurisdiction under forum non conveniens.

The equalization and property issues were left to be completed in Costa Rica, without prejudice to a later Ontario proceeding limited to disposition of the matrimonial home and distribution of net sale proceeds.

The appellant father appealed a parenting variation order arising from a motion to change under the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The appeal challenged the continuation of sole decision-making with the mother, limits on the father’s proactive contact with the child’s service providers, the exchange location, the refusal of video calls, the adjournment of the SIN issue, and the timing of compliance with a name-change term.

The court held that the applicable standard was palpable and overriding error and found that the motion judge had conducted the required fresh best-interests inquiry after a conceded material change in circumstances.

The evidentiary record supported findings of high parental conflict, controlling behaviour, and excessive communications with providers that risked disrupting care for a medically vulnerable child.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent sought settlement of the wording of family-law and costs orders arising from earlier reasons concerning the exercise of a right of first refusal over the matrimonial home.

The court held that the disputed enforcement language in the draft costs order did not conform to the prescribed terminology under O. Reg. 454/07 and accepted the respondent's form of costs order, leaving the administrative “Temporary” and “Final” boxes blank.

The court further held that characterization of the underlying order as interlocutory or final was for the appellate court, not necessary to settle the order, and that the prior consent order creating the right of first refusal had to be referenced because it formed the legal foundation of the relief granted.

The respondent's draft wording was generally preferred, subject to removal of factual findings, rationale, unresolved amount references, and matters on which no relief had been granted.

This family law trial determined the valuation date for equalization where the spouses continued living under the same roof for years after their relationship deteriorated.

The court applied a holistic and objective analysis of the parties’ routines, vacations, sleeping arrangements, financial practices, family events, tax filings, and declarations to assess when they separated with no reasonable prospect of resuming cohabitation.

The respondent’s evidence supporting a 2014 separation date was rejected on credibility grounds, while the applicant’s evidence established only a temporary separation in 2016-2017 followed by reconciliation.

The court declared the separation date to be December 18, 2019 for purposes of s. 4 of the Family Law Act.

Following a six-day family trial and corrected reasons, the court determined prejudgment interest and costs.

The successful party was awarded prejudgment interest on the equalization amount owing and enhanced trial costs based on overall success, the reasonableness and proportionality of counsel's fees, and the opposing party's unreasonable non-compliance with disclosure and trial-preparation obligations under the Family Law Rules.

The court declined to find bad faith, but held that the conduct nonetheless justified recovery above partial indemnity.

The court also held it lacked jurisdiction to award costs for earlier conferences where the prior judges' endorsements were silent or did not expressly reserve those costs to the trial judge.

The plaintiff, a second mortgagee, sought a declaration that an amended first mortgage held by the defendant was unenforceable against it due to alleged fraud.

The plaintiff claimed the defendant concealed increased interest rates and a U.S. dollar conversion clause when it took assignment of the first mortgage.

The court found the plaintiff failed to prove the elements of civil fraud or that the defendant wrongfully concealed the terms.

The plaintiff's claims were dismissed, and the amended first mortgage was held to maintain priority.

The parties separated after a 17-year marriage.

The applicant wife sought spousal support, a right of first refusal to purchase the matrimonial home, and damages for intimate partner violence-related torts including intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault and battery.

The respondent husband sought the sale of the matrimonial home, occupation rent, and the dismissal of the spousal support and tort claims.

The court granted the divorce, ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, and awarded the wife compensatory and needs-based spousal support for 11 years.

The court dismissed the husband's claim for occupation rent.

Finding that the husband engaged in a pattern of gaslighting and physical battery, the court awarded the wife $150,000 in general and aggravated damages and $10,000 in punitive damages.

This endorsement concerns the approval of a settlement involving a party under disability and directions for the appointment of a litigation guardian.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), acting as statutory guardian of property for the respondent wife, moved for approval of Minutes of Settlement covering all issues except divorce.

The court approved the settlement under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the evidentiary requirements met.

Additionally, the court provided directions for the appointment of a litigation guardian for the respondent to address the outstanding divorce application, clarifying that the PGT's statutory jurisdiction does not extend to consenting to a divorce.

The decision outlines the procedure for appointing a litigation guardian under Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as the Family Law Rules are silent on this matter.