T. J. Nieckarz

The Indigenous offender was sentenced for a random robbery and assault with a weapon (stabbing) against two women in a drive-thru.

The court considered the offender's youth, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, and significant Gladue factors, alongside his recent rehabilitative efforts and sobriety.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, the court rejected the Crown's proposed 30-36 month sentence and imposed the defence's proposed sentence of 2 years less a day, minus enhanced pre-sentence custody credit, followed by 2 years of probation.

The applicants, nieces of the deceased, brought a motion for directions to challenge the validity of the deceased's 2014 Will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by the respondent neighbour.

The court found the applicants met the minimum evidentiary threshold by adducing evidence of the deceased's cognitive decline, delusions, and hospitalizations for confusion.

The court ordered a trial of the issues, production of solicitor and medical records, and a preservation order over the estate assets.

The court heard three motions in related civil and family law actions to determine the distribution of $100,000 held by the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice.

The funds were the remaining net sale proceeds of a property previously owned by the respondent.

The parties disputed the interpretation of the family law Minutes of Settlement regarding the calculation of the applicant's 50% share, specifically concerning add-backs for legal fees and whether the respondent could deduct his civil litigation legal fees.

The court found that only the legal fees attributable to the family law file should be added back and that the respondent was not entitled to deduct his civil litigation fees from the amount subject to division.

The defendant in a slip and fall personal injury action brought a motion seeking production of the plaintiff's pre-accident medical and employment records.

The plaintiff claimed damages for injuries to her right ankle and left knee, while the defendant argued her pre-existing chronic back and ankle conditions were relevant to assessing her original position and future functioning.

The court ordered production of the records, but limited the scope to documents specifically relating to back, ankle, leg, and foot issues from 2001 or 2003 onwards, finding that her entire medical history was not relevant.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court previously dismissed the claims relating to online expressions on matters of public interest.

In these supplementary reasons, the court considered whether s. 137.1 requires the dismissal of the entire proceeding, including claims for harassment and an expression unrelated to the public interest.

The court held that 'proceeding' in s. 137.1 does not mandate an 'all or nothing' dismissal, and claims not grounded in public interest expression must be allowed to continue.

The plaintiff brought an action claiming she overpaid a private mortgage based on an alleged oral agreement to reduce the interest rate from 14% to prime plus 4% upon renewal.

The defendant estate counterclaimed for the outstanding balance at 14% interest and moved for summary judgment.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Statute of Frauds as there was no written evidence of the alleged oral agreement.

The court also held that the doctrine of part performance did not apply because the plaintiff's continued mortgage payments were not unequivocally referable to the alleged oral agreement.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed, and judgment was granted on the counterclaim.

The plaintiff, an architectural design firm, sued the defendants for copyright infringement, alleging they copied its design for a townhome project in Thunder Bay to build a similar project in Fort Frances.

The court found that the plaintiff held copyright in the original design, which was an original work requiring skill and judgment.

The court concluded that the defendants' design was a substantial reproduction of the plaintiff's work, constituting copyright infringement.

The plaintiff was awarded declaratory relief, an injunction, and $6,500 in statutory damages.

The accused was charged with robbery, assault with a weapon, and uttering threats following an incident where two women were attacked in a vehicle.

The primary issue at trial was identity, with the defence arguing that an acquaintance of the accused committed the offences.

During a blended voir dire, the court admitted the accused's video statement to police and Facebook Messenger group chat excerpts as evidence.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, clothing descriptions, and the accused's admissions in the group chat, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the assailant.

The accused was found guilty of robbery and assault with a weapon, but acquitted of uttering threats.

The accused, a volunteer firefighter, was charged with arson and conspiracy to commit arson after an acquaintance set fire to an abandoned home.

The Crown alleged the accused planned the fire with the acquaintance via social media and phone calls.

Applying the W.(D.) framework for credibility, the court found the accused's version of events raised a reasonable doubt, particularly because he took a call from the acquaintance on speakerphone in the presence of his girlfriend.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

Following a successful motion to strike the plaintiffs' pleadings, the defendant sought costs.

The court reviewed the costs claimed by the defendant, including partial indemnity fees and disbursements for travel.

Finding the rates and time spent reasonable, the court awarded the defendant costs fixed at $4,127.64.

The respondents, the declarant and project manager of a condominium, brought a motion to add the general contractor, Man-Shield, as a party to an application brought by the condominium corporation seeking as-built drawings under the Condominium Act, 1998.

Alternatively, the respondents sought to consolidate the application with a related construction deficiency action.

The court dismissed the motion to add the general contractor, finding no cause of action against it under the Act, which imposes obligations solely on the declarant.

The court also dismissed the motion to consolidate, finding the issues distinct and noting that consolidation would unnecessarily complicate the proceedings and prejudice other parties.

The self-represented plaintiffs commenced an action against Hydro One for $150 million after their power was disconnected.

Their initial Statement of Claim was struck with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to extend the time to file their Amended Statement of Claim, and the defendant brought a cross-motion to strike the amended pleadings.

The court granted the extension of time to correct the filing irregularity but struck the Amended Statement of Claim in its entirety, finding it remained replete with irrelevant, scandalous, and inflammatory statements, and failed to plead material facts.

Leave to issue an Amended Amended Statement of Claim was denied, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay a previous costs award before bringing any further motions to amend.

The defendant was successful on cross-motions to strike pleadings and sought costs of $7,224.66.

The self-represented plaintiffs did not challenge the entitlement to costs but disputed the quantum, particularly travel disbursements and agency fees.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01, reduced the travel disbursements to a reasonable expectation, disallowed agency fees that could have been avoided by teleconference, and deferred costs related to the statement of defence to the final disposition of the action.

Costs were fixed at $4,698.00 payable by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs were wholly successful on a motion requiring surplus sale proceeds from the defendant's property to be paid into court.

They sought costs of $20,000 payable from the funds in court, while the defendant argued for $3,000 to $6,000.

The court fixed costs at $12,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST, balancing the indemnity principle with access to justice.

The court declined to order the costs payable from the funds in court, as other parties might have claims against those funds.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendant argued that its failure to defend the action was solely due to the negligence of its former lawyer, who failed to act despite instructions.

The court applied the test for setting aside a default judgment and found that the defendant moved promptly upon learning of the default, had a plausible explanation for the default, and raised an arguable defence on the merits regarding cause for termination and damages.

The court granted the motion to set aside the default judgment but ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's substantial indemnity costs incurred due to the default.