Thomas A. Bielby

The parties, married for less than two years, engaged in high-conflict litigation concerning custody, access, child support, spousal support, and property equalization.

The court granted the applicant sole custody and decision-making authority for the children, while maintaining equal shared parenting time.

The respondent's claims for constructive trust, spousal support, and child support were dismissed.

An unequalization payment was ordered from the applicant to the respondent, reflecting the short marriage and pre-marital acquisition of the primary asset.

The court imputed income to the unemployed respondent for child support purposes.

The accused, a medical doctor, was charged with sexual assault of a patient.

This was a new trial ordered by the Court of Appeal following a previous conviction.

The complainant testified to various sexual acts by the accused during a medical appointment.

The accused denied all allegations, citing a severe right hand injury at the time that would have made the alleged actions excruciatingly painful.

The defence also presented "fresh evidence" from other patients and a tenant who claimed to have overheard the complainant and her sister discussing fabricating an allegation for financial gain.

The court found the complainant to be a credible witness but disbelieved the accused's testimony.

However, considering the medical evidence regarding the accused's hand injury and the "fresh evidence" from defence witnesses, despite its suspicious nature, the court found that a reasonable doubt existed.

The accused was found not guilty.

Andrew Campbell was convicted by a jury of kidnapping, pointing a handgun, and assault causing bodily harm.

The court, in its sentencing decision, considered the severe nature of the offences, which involved violence, torture, and the use of a firearm, alongside the offender's lack of remorse.

Mitigating factors included a clean criminal record and compliance with bail conditions.

The judge imposed a global sentence of 7 years for kidnapping, with concurrent sentences for the other charges, after granting credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail terms.

Ancillary orders for a DNA sample and a lifetime weapons prohibition were also issued.

The offender, Narmatha Satkunananthan, was convicted by a jury of possession of Oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered sentencing submissions, noting the disastrous impact of opiates on the community.

Mitigating factors included the offender's lack of criminal record, strong family and community support, youthful age at the time of arrest, and a prior Charter breach related to her arrest.

The Crown sought 16-18 months custody, while the defence sought a suspended sentence.

The court, balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, determined that a suspended sentence with two years' probation and ancillary orders was appropriate, concluding that specific and general deterrence could be achieved without incarceration given the unique circumstances and mitigating factors.

The defendant Sandhu brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against her, arguing that a settlement agreement had resolved the dispute.

The plaintiff Zaib opposed, alleging her signature on the agreement was forged.

The court ruled the defendant's expert handwriting report inadmissible because it was presented as an exhibit to a legal assistant's affidavit, preventing cross-examination of the expert.

Given the conflicting evidence regarding the agreement's authenticity and numerous inconsistencies in the defendant's discovery testimony, the court found that credibility was a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of impaired care or control after the trial judge, on his own initiative, considered this included offence without inviting submissions from counsel.

The appeal court found this constituted procedural unfairness, as the Crown had focused solely on impaired driving and the defence had not had an opportunity to address the care or control theory or rebut the presumption.

The conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The accused, charged with drug possession for trafficking, brought applications under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude evidence (drugs and statements) obtained from a motel room.

The Crown also sought a ruling on the voluntariness of an accused's statement.

The court found multiple Charter breaches: police entered the motel room without informed consent, conducted a warrantless search, and breached the right to counsel.

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

The Plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to file additional evidence, including an expert handwriting report, in the context of a summary judgment motion brought by the Defendant Sandhu.

The court reviewed the procedural history, noting previous orders setting strict timelines for filing expert reports and additional materials.

Applying the factors for granting leave under Rule 39.02(2), the court found the evidence relevant and responsive to cross-examination, but determined that granting leave would result in non-compensable prejudice to the Defendant and would conflict with earlier court orders.

The Plaintiff's explanation for the delay in retaining the expert and bringing the motion for leave was deemed unsatisfactory, as the need for such evidence was known much earlier.

Consequently, the Plaintiff's motion for leave was dismissed.

Following conviction for sexual assault and sexual interference arising from historic sexual touching of a six-year-old child by a trusted family member, the court determined a fit sentence.

The defence argued for a conditional sentence and raised Charter issues concerning the applicable minimum punishment under s. 11(i), while the Crown sought a custodial term and a stay of the sexual assault count.

The court held that denunciation and general deterrence predominated in sentencing sexual offences against children, particularly where there was a breach of trust and significant victim impact.

A conditional sentence was found inappropriate, the sexual assault conviction was stayed, and a custodial sentence of six months less a day followed by two years' probation was imposed, together with ancillary orders.

The applicant sought to enforce a settlement agreement reached in an estate dispute.

The settlement was conditional on the applicant's brother not opposing the settlement or the deceased's 2012 Will.

The brother subsequently commenced an application challenging the 2012 Will, which was later deemed abandoned.

The court found that the brother's challenge constituted opposition to the settlement, meaning the condition precedent was not met.

The court dismissed the application to enforce the settlement, holding that it became unenforceable once opposed, regardless of the later abandonment of the brother's application.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to declare that Ontario is the proper jurisdiction to determine the issue of spousal support.

The respondent had commenced a divorce action in Pennsylvania but conceded Ontario's jurisdiction over child-related issues.

The court applied the test for summary judgment and found that Ontario had a real and substantial connection to the parties, as the applicant and child had resided there for over two years.

The court granted partial summary judgment, declaring Ontario the proper jurisdiction for all claims raised in the application, including spousal support.

The third mortgagee brought a motion to set aside part of a Reference Report that had added the plaintiff's costs to the mortgage debt, effectively reducing the surplus funds from the power of sale to zero.

The moving party sought payment of the surplus funds and relief from previous costs orders.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Reference Report had been automatically confirmed 15 days after its release, and the motion to oppose confirmation was brought months out of time.

Furthermore, the court held there were no grounds under Rule 59.06 to vary the previous orders, and no error in principle or excess of jurisdiction in the referee's findings.

The plaintiff, a self-represented lawyer, brought an action for wrongful termination of his independent contractor agreement with the defendant law firm.

The plaintiff filed an 87-page Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim containing 259 paragraphs.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the claim on the basis that it pleaded evidence rather than material facts, contained irrelevancies, and breached solicitor-client privilege by naming clients and detailing their files.

The court agreed, finding the claim read like an evidentiary diary and could not be repaired with a 'band-aid solution'.

The court struck the Statement of Claim in its entirety but granted the plaintiff leave to deliver a new Amended Statement of Claim.

The Crown applied for certiorari and mandamus to quash a preliminary hearing judge's order discharging the accused on a charge of dangerous driving causing death.

The Crown alleged the accused and the deceased were street racing when the deceased crashed and died.

The reviewing judge found the preliminary hearing judge committed jurisdictional error by failing to take the Crown's evidence at its highest and by creating a reasonable apprehension of bias through excessive intervention and questioning of a police witness regarding speed calculations.

The application was granted, and the matter was remitted with a direction to commit the accused for trial on charges of dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving while street racing causing death.

In a historical child sexual abuse prosecution involving two complainants from the same family, the court assessed reliability concerns arising from delayed disclosure, childhood memory, inconsistencies, and an alleged family falling-out said to support collusion.

Applying the W. (D.) framework and principles governing children's evidence, the court rejected the accused's evidence and found that one complainant's detailed account bore sufficient indicia of reliability despite inconsistencies attributable to age and the passage of time.

The court found reasonable doubt on the counts relating to the second complainant, including on intent and whether the brief over-clothing contact was sexual in nature.

Convictions were entered on two counts and acquittals on two counts.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police executed a search warrant at his residence and conducted a warrantless search of his vehicle, finding cocaine in both locations.

The accused challenged the searches under s. 8 of the Charter.

The court upheld both searches, finding the warrant was supported by sufficient corroborated information from a confidential informant, and the vehicle search was validly incidental to arrest.

However, at trial, the accused raised an alternate suspect defence, pointing to his brother who lived with him and had access to the vehicle and residence.

The court found the brother lacked credibility but concluded the evidence raised a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused or his brother possessed the cocaine.

The accused was acquitted.

The applicant developer conveyed a block of land to the respondent municipality for future road purposes pursuant to a 1998 subdivision agreement.

The applicant sought compensation or reconveyance of the land, arguing that the municipality would be unjustly enriched if it conveyed the land to a third-party developer without compensating the applicant.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the subdivision agreement was a comprehensive contract that did not include provisions for the reconveyance or cost-sharing of the specific block in question, precluding claims of resulting trust or unjust enrichment.

The moving party sought interim custody of the parties' three children, relying in part on an OCL clinical investigation recommending that all children reside with her.

The court held that on an interim custody motion the existing status quo will generally be maintained unless compelling reasons or exceptional circumstances justify immediate change.

Although the report contained relevant information, its recommendations were untested and some underlying facts were disputed.

Finding no urgency or exceptional circumstances, the court declined to make a substantive departure from the existing living arrangements and dismissed the motion.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interim injunction against a former employee and his new competing business, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition through the use of confidential information and client solicitation.

The court found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the breach of fiduciary duty.

However, the motion was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm, as the alleged loss of business could not be directly attributed to the defendants and the plaintiffs delayed 11 months in bringing the motion.

The applicants, charged with importing cocaine, brought an application to stay the charges against them due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total time to the anticipated end of trial was over 43 months, exceeding the 30-month ceiling established in Jordan.

After deducting periods of defence delay and delay caused by exceptional circumstances (a change of counsel and a Crown medical emergency), the net delay remained above the ceiling at 35.67 months and 35 months for the respective applicants.

The court found the delay unreasonable and stayed the charges.