Thomas J. Carey

The offender was convicted of incest and sexual assault against his daughter, with the offences occurring between the ages of 11 and 15.

The court emphasized the profound breach of trust, the severe physical and psychological impact on the victim, and the need for denunciation and deterrence as per the Friesen framework.

The offender was sentenced to a global penitentiary term of 9 years, alongside non-communication, weapons prohibition, and SOIRA orders.

The applicant father brought an emergency motion to enforce an existing access order after the respondent mother arbitrarily withheld the child based on unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse.

The court found the mother's actions were motivated by spite and undermined the parenting order.

The court granted the father's motion, ordered the enforcement of the existing parenting order, dismissed the mother's emergency motion, and awarded costs to the father.

This decision concerns a costs order following a motion where the parties reached a consent order on all issues except costs.

The respondent father sought full indemnification costs, alleging the applicant mother's conduct was vexatious and in bad faith due to her non-acquiescence to access requests based on unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse.

The applicant mother argued that the allegations were untested and that a last-minute settlement offer should not result in a costs award.

The court found that it could not make findings of bad faith without tested evidence and that awarding costs after a last-minute amended offer acceptance would undermine settlement negotiations.

Consequently, the costs of the resolved motion were reserved to the trial judge.

The plaintiff, ZD Metal Products Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant, Metamag Inc., concerning alleged breaches of contract for the manufacture of two industrial ovens.

The plaintiff sought approximately $400,000 USD for a defective aluminum furnace and an undelivered magnesium furnace.

The defendant argued that the aluminum furnace's failure was due to the plaintiff's improper maintenance and operation, and that the magnesium furnace contract was not fully complied with by the plaintiff, including payment and inspection.

The court found a multitude of genuine issues of fact requiring a trial, including whether the aluminum furnace was defective upon delivery, if the defendant failed to repair it, if the plaintiff caused the damage, and issues related to the magnesium furnace contract's terms and plaintiff's compliance.

Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed with costs.

The offender, a youthful first offender with a traumatic background, was convicted of sexual assault after having unprotected intercourse with the complainant based on an unreasonable mistaken belief in consent.

The court found his moral blameworthiness to be lower than typical major sexual assaults, noting his intoxication and immediate cessation upon realizing the complainant's distress.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, the court sentenced the offender to one year of incarceration followed by one year of probation, along with mandatory ancillary orders.

Two commercial truck drivers were charged under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act after 11 foreign nationals were discovered hidden in the sleeping cab of their truck at the Canada-US border.

The accused brought a motion arguing no case to answer, asserting the Customs Act should apply, which the court dismissed.

At trial, the court rejected the driver's testimony denying knowledge of the passengers, finding him guilty based on his attempt to evade secondary inspection.

The co-driver, who was resting in the passenger seat, was acquitted as the court found his denial of knowledge could reasonably be true and there was insufficient evidence of willful blindness.

The applicant brought an application alleging her s. 8 Charter rights were violated by the covert, warrantless installation of a police camera in the hallway outside her apartment door.

The camera recorded persons entering and leaving her apartment for 60 days.

The court applied the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Yu, finding that the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common area outside her apartment, and that building management's consent did not vitiate the need for a warrant.

The court declared that the applicant's s. 8 Charter rights were violated.

The respondent father, a nurse practitioner, brought an emergency motion to enforce a shared parenting order after the applicant mother unilaterally suspended his in-person access due to COVID-19 concerns.

The mother argued the father's employment and recent travel recklessly exposed the children to the virus.

The court granted the father's motion and dismissed the mother's cross-motion, finding no evidence that the father failed to adhere to appropriate safety protocols.

The court emphasized that COVID-19 and a parent's status as an essential healthcare worker must not be weaponized in parenting conflicts.

The defendant, Prudential Select Realty Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim against it.

The plaintiff alleged that Prudential Select was responsible for the wrongful conduct of its agent, Mr. Singh, who sold a property to the plaintiff in his personal capacity before completing his own purchase of the property.

The court found that Mr. Singh acted as a principal in the transaction, without the involvement or knowledge of Prudential Select, and that Prudential Select did not receive any commission.

Applying principles of vicarious liability, the court determined there was no genuine issue for trial against Prudential Select, as Mr. Singh's actions were not connected to his authorized employment with the brokerage.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the claim against Prudential Select was dismissed with costs.

This decision addresses the quantum of costs following a successful trial for the applicant.

The applicant sought over $105,000 in total costs, while the respondent argued for a limit of $25,000, citing financial hardship and proportionality.

The court, applying Rule 57 factors and the principle of proportionality, awarded the applicant $40,000 for fees and $7,500 for disbursements plus HST, finding the applicant's requested amount excessive despite the reasonableness of counsel's hourly rate and the applicant's success at trial.

In this family law trial, the applicant mother sought child support for her 20-year-old son, K.R.G., asserting he was a "child of the marriage" due to mental illness and inability to withdraw from her charge.

She also requested a higher income imputation for the respondent father and a greater proportion of s. 7 expenses.

The respondent father, self-represented, contended that K.R.G.'s issues stemmed from drug and alcohol abuse enabled by the mother, not a disabling mental illness, and that his income was lower than claimed.

The court found no admissible medical evidence to support K.R.G.'s involuntary disability and concluded that the mother's actions enabled his unproductive lifestyle, thus K.R.G. was not a child of the marriage for support purposes.

The court accepted the father's declared income of $42,000 and determined the mother's income potential was similar.

Child support was ordered for the younger child, R.M.G., based on the father's $42,000 income, with s. 7 expenses split equally.

No costs were awarded.

The defendants were successful in defending a summary judgment motion brought by the plaintiffs and sought full indemnity costs of $5,509.03.

The plaintiffs argued for costs of $750.

The court found that full indemnity costs were not warranted as the matter was relatively straightforward.

Considering the factors in Rule 57.01, the court awarded the defendants costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $3,500, payable forthwith.

The accused, two American citizens, were charged with importing marijuana and possessing a prohibited firearm after mistakenly crossing the border into Canada.

They intended to stay at a hotel in Detroit but took a wrong turn onto the bridge to Windsor.

The court accepted their evidence that they had no intention of entering Canada and were unaware they had done so until they were on the bridge.

Finding that the requisite mens rea for the offences was absent, the court acquitted both accused on all charges.

The applicant sought an order of possession for his property, which was initially expected to be unopposed by the respondent.

The respondent, who is the alleged complainant in criminal charges against the applicant, appeared unrepresented.

After amicus counsel was appointed for the respondent, the court expressed significant concerns about its jurisdiction to grant the order, the lack of a cited statutory or rule basis for the application, and the potential for civil proceedings, especially with costs sought, to intimidate an unrepresented complainant in a domestic/sexual assault case.

The court viewed such an application as potentially an "end run" around the criminal court's jurisdiction.

For these reasons, the court declined to make the requested order and adjourned the matter.

The applicant sought an order requiring the respondent school board to consent to the assignment of a 99-year parking lot licence to a prospective purchaser of the applicant's property.

The respondent refused, arguing the agreement was effectively a lease that violated the subdivision control provisions of the Planning Act.

The court found the agreement was a valid licence, not a lease, and fell within the exception in s. 50(9) of the Planning Act for structures.

The application was allowed, and the respondent was ordered to consent to the assignment.

The mother brought a motion to change seeking ongoing spousal support and child support for two children, including a contribution to the adult daughter's student loan debt.

The court reduced and ordered a termination date for spousal support, noting the mother's ability to increase her income and the father's post-separation efforts.

The court dismissed the claim for the adult daughter's student debt, finding she was employed full-time, had not consulted the father before incurring the debt, and was inappropriately recruited by the mother to support the claim.

Child support for the minor son was updated based on the father's income.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment claiming the proceeds of a life insurance policy based on a separation agreement.

The agreement required the deceased to designate his former spouse as the irrevocable beneficiary of any employment-related life insurance policy in trust for their children to secure child support.

The deceased later changed jobs and designated his new spouse as the beneficiary of his new employer's policy, but had also purchased a separate policy naming the children as beneficiaries.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding whether the support obligation was frustrated when the deceased lost his previous employment, whether the separate policy satisfied the intent of the agreement, and whether the former spouse came to court with clean hands.

Supplementary reasons establishing the timeline and procedure for the parties to make written submissions on costs following the release of the main judgment.

The parties separated after a 27-year marriage during which the applicant primarily raised their children and assisted in building the respondent's financial advising business.

The applicant, now disabled by fibromyalgia, sought spousal support and equalization of net family property.

The court ordered spousal support at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, retroactive to the date of separation, finding the applicant's delay in seeking support was reasonably explained by her health and financial circumstances.

For equalization, the court accepted the applicant's expert valuation of the respondent's business, which included significant value for the goodwill in his book of business, and ordered an equalization payment of $278,316.85.

The applicants brought an application under section 83 of the Municipal Elections Act to declare the 2018 municipal election in Lambton Shores invalid.

The applicants alleged nine distinct irregularities, primarily focusing on the municipality's exclusive use of internet and telephone voting, the removal of names from the voters' list, and privacy concerns.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no evidence of any irregularities that led to the disenfranchisement of eligible voters or the enfranchisement of ineligible voters.

The court concluded that the municipality complied with the Act and that the applicants' complaints stemmed from a personal distrust of electronic voting rather than actionable statutory breaches.