Sylvia Corthorn

The accused was tried on four counts: one count of sexual assault, one count of robbery, and two counts of theft under $5,000.

The Crown alleged that the accused posed as a driver for hire to lure young women into his vehicle, subsequently stealing their cell phones and bank cards to access their funds.

In one instance, the accused drove the complainant to an isolated area and sexually assaulted her before stealing her belongings.

Relying on circumstantial evidence, CCTV footage, DNA analysis, and similar fact evidence from a prior conviction, the court found the accused guilty on all counts.

The plaintiff sued two property appraisers he had retained for an improvident sale action, alleging their appraisals undervalued his condominium unit.

One of the defendant appraisers brought a motion to strike the claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The court granted the motion, finding it plain and obvious the claim could not succeed because the appraiser was protected by absolute witness immunity for reports prepared for litigation.

Furthermore, the claim was entirely speculative as the improvident sale action had not yet been determined, meaning the plaintiff could not establish any damages.

The claim was struck without leave to amend.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized and possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order.

The offences involved the offender handling a restricted handgun in a commercial office while subject to two prior lifetime weapons prohibitions.

The Crown sought a total sentence of 3 years less pre-sentence custody, while the defence sought an 18-month conditional sentence.

The court found the offences fell within the true crime end of the spectrum, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence given the offender's recidivism and disregard for court orders.

The court imposed a sentence of 2 years for the unauthorized possession and a consecutive 6 months for the breach of the prohibition order, less 3 months credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in 2 years and 3 months remaining to serve.

The applicant, a resident of China who sustained a severe traumatic brain injury in a motorcoach collision in Ontario, sought court approval for the settlement of her Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) claim.

The court dispensed with the requirement for the litigation guardian to file an affidavit, finding it cost-effective and proportionate.

The court approved the SABS settlement of $626,074.11 as reasonable and in the applicant's best interests.

The court also approved the solicitor-client account, the distribution of funds to healthcare providers, and the proposed management of the net settlement funds by the applicant's husband in China.

The plaintiffs sought court approval for the settlement of claims on behalf of two minor plaintiffs arising from a fatal motorcoach bus collision.

The court approved the settlement amounts, the proposed solicitor-client account based on quantum meruit, and the payment of the net settlement funds to the minor plaintiffs' father, who resides in China, rather than the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice.

The main action and all crossclaims were dismissed without costs.

The plaintiffs, who were passengers on a tour bus that crashed on Highway 401, sought court approval for the settlement of claims on behalf of two parties under disability: an elderly woman who suffered a severe traumatic brain injury and a minor child.

The plaintiffs also sought approval of the solicitor-client accounts, disbursements, and a proposal to have the net settlement funds managed by family members in China, where the plaintiffs reside.

The court found the settlements, legal fees, and proposed fund management plans to be reasonable and in the best interests of the parties under disability, and granted the requested relief.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's anti-SLAPP motion, the plaintiff sought costs.

Under s. 137.1(8) of the Courts of Justice Act, a responding party is generally not entitled to costs unless appropriate in the circumstances.

The court found it appropriate to award costs to the plaintiff due to the defendant's over-litigation of the motion, the potential finding of malice, and the prejudice to the plaintiff in a Simplified Procedure action.

The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs fixed at $27,263 on a partial indemnity scale.

The defendants brought a motion to adjourn the trial of a slip and fall action scheduled for March 2026.

The plaintiff, who claimed damages for chronic pain syndrome, failed to produce approximately 400 pages of medical records and update her oral discovery answers until weeks before trial.

The court found that the plaintiff breached her discovery obligations under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

To ensure trial fairness and allow the defendants to respond to the new evidence, the court granted the adjournment.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs and the release of funds held in trust from a real estate transaction.

On the return of the motion, after the court highlighted significant evidentiary deficiencies in their affidavit materials, the defendants abandoned the motion in its entirety.

The court formally dismissed the abandoned motion and awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity scale, noting the motion was poorly executed and lacked merit.

This motion arose from one of six related actions following a fatal motorcoach bus collision on Highway 401 in June 2018, in which the deceased was a passenger.

The plaintiffs sought: an order to continue the action on behalf of a plaintiff who died after the action was commenced; approval of the settlement of the claims of a minor plaintiff (the deceased's granddaughter); approval of the minor plaintiff's contribution toward the solicitor-client account; and approval of the management of the net settlement funds payable to the minor plaintiff by her father, who resides in China, rather than through the Accountant for the Superior Court of Justice.

The court granted all relief requested, finding that the settlement was reasonable and in the minor's best interests, that payment to the father was proportionate and practical given the parties' residence in China, and that counsel's dual role as affiant and lawyer of record was appropriate in the circumstances.

The main action and all crossclaims were dismissed without costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion in writing for approval of a settlement on behalf of an adult under disability, along with related relief.

The court adjourned the motion because the plaintiff's motion record exceeded 1,100 pages, failed to comply with the local Guide to Court Approval of Settlements, and contained uncommissioned exhibits.

The plaintiff was ordered to file a revised, compliant motion record of no more than 250 pages, schedule an oral hearing with a compendium, or schedule a case conference.

The moving parties sought approval in writing of a settlement for an adult under disability, together with approval of a fee structure agreement and solicitor-client account.

The court held it could not grant the requested relief because the motion record was procedurally deficient, excessively long, improperly organized, and non-compliant with local guidance for court approval motions.

The endorsement criticized the inclusion of unnecessary and duplicative exhibits, inadequate grounds in the notice of motion, and failures to explain the relevance of cited rules.

The motion was adjourned, a fresh record was required, and the parties were directed to choose among a revised written motion, an oral hearing, or a case conference.

The deceased sent an email with an attached, unsigned electronic document titled 'Nabute's Will'.

The responding party on the main application brought a motion arguing that s. 21.1(2) of the Succession Law Reform Act and s. 31 of the Electronic Commerce Act prohibit the validation of electronic documents as wills.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that while the functional equivalency rules of the ECA cannot be used to satisfy the formal requirements of a will, there is no statutory prohibition against a court exercising its discretion under s. 21.1 of the SLRA to validate an electronic document as a fully effective testamentary document if the requirements of authenticity and fixed testamentary intention are met.

Following the applicant's success on an application regarding the end date of a contract, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found that the respondent's conduct, which included taking inconsistent positions throughout the dispute and failing to meaningfully engage in settlement negotiations, warranted an elevated costs award.

The court fixed the applicant's costs on a substantial indemnity scale in the amount of $99,855.00.

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action.

The plaintiff, a prominent fencing coach, sued the defendant over an online article and blog posts alleging sexual impropriety and athlete mistreatment.

The court found that while the expression related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff established that his claim had substantial merit and that there were grounds to believe the defendant had no valid defence.

The court also concluded that the public interest in allowing the plaintiff to vindicate his reputation outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendant's expression.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant condominium corporation sought relief against a unit owner for alleged breaches of the Condominium Act, the corporation's Declaration, and its Rules.

The breaches alleged included harassment of board members and contractors, failure to maintain an exclusive-use yard in compliance with governing rules, and refusal to permit access to a common element (sump pump) located within the unit.

The court found that the respondent breached sections 19, 117, and 119 of the Condominium Act, the Declaration, and the Rules.

The court granted declaratory relief and orders requiring the respondent to permit access to the yard for maintenance and to cease harassing and threatening communications.

The court adjourned the determination of compensatory relief and costs pending further submissions.

The moving party brought a motion to set aside a previous decision dismissing his proceedings and sought the recusal of a registrar and six judges.

The court reviewed the motion under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Finding that the motion lacked merit, served no reasonable purpose, and was part of a continuing pattern of abusive litigation behaviour, the court dismissed the motion without requiring written submissions.

Motion for court approval of settlement of claims on behalf of three minor grandchildren of the deceased in a fatal pedestrian-vehicle collision case.

The plaintiffs sought approval for $10,000 to be paid to the Accountant of the Superior Court for each minor plaintiff, along with approval of a contingency fee retainer agreement and related relief.

The court adjourned the motion due to insufficient evidence regarding the quantum of the settlement, the basis for the settlement amount, and the treatment of legal fees and disbursements.

The court identified multiple procedural deficiencies in the motion record and provided detailed directions for resubmission.

The individual defendants (Mayor and Treasurer) brought a motion to dismiss the action against them pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that the claims were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff alleged his home was sold at a tax sale auction for less than 45% of its value and sought compensatory and punitive damages.

The court found that the claims against the individual defendants lacked any factual basis specific to their personal conduct and were not justiciable.

The motion was granted and the claims against the individual defendants were dismissed without costs.

The applicant sought a declaration regarding the end date of a contract for the supply of telephones, televisions, and multimedia terminals to the applicant's inpatient facilities.

The original agreement commenced in September 2003 for 9.5 years.

An amending agreement in 2009-2010 extended the term by 7 years to March 1, 2020, and introduced new multimedia terminals.

The respondent argued the contract contained an alternative term triggered upon completion of terminal installation in July 2014, extending the contract to January 2031.

The court applied principles of contract interpretation and found the alternative term was vague and unenforceable.

The court also found the respondent was precluded by the doctrine of election from asserting the alternative term, having previously relied on the contract's terms in the commission dispute.

The court declared the contract term to be September 1, 2003 to March 1, 2020.