Trimble

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking the return of the parties' two children from Lebanon to Ontario.

The respondent mother had travelled to Lebanon with the children for a planned vacation but subsequently refused to return, commencing annulment and custody proceedings in a Lebanese religious court and obtaining a travel ban.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that Ontario was the children's habitual residence and assumed jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court declined to defer to the Lebanese court orders, finding that the father had not been given reasonable notice or an opportunity to be heard in those proceedings.

The mother was ordered to return the children to Ontario immediately.

The plaintiffs brought an action for specific performance or damages arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The defendants, represented by a non-lawyer litigation guardian, argued the agreement was invalid due to incapacity, fraud, and failure to deliver the deposit on time.

The court struck the defendants' pleadings because a non-lawyer cannot act as a representative plaintiff under Rule 15.01.

On the merits, the court found the defendants committed an anticipatory breach.

Specific performance was denied as the property was not unique, but the court awarded $975,000 in damages based on the property's increased value.

The moving defendant sought a stay of the action on the basis that the plaintiff, a foreign corporation registered in India, was carrying on business in Ontario without a license required by the Extra-Provincial Corporations Act (EPCA).

The court found that the plaintiff exercised sufficient control over the defendant such that the defendant acted as its agent, and therefore the plaintiff was carrying on business in Ontario within the meaning of the EPCA.

The court ordered the action stayed until the plaintiff obtained the required license.

The plaintiff, a Korean corporation, was the victim of a phishing scam and wired funds to an account controlled by the defendants.

The plaintiff sued multiple defendants for fraud and related claims.

Three groups of defendants moved for an order requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs under Rule 56.01(1).

The court found that the plaintiff was a foreign corporation with no assets in Ontario and failed to prove impecuniosity with robust evidence.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in installments, totaling $210,000 across three phases.

The accused, charged with murder, brought a pre-trial application to adduce evidence of the deceased victim's propensity for violence when intoxicated to support claims of self-defence and provocation.

The Crown conceded the evidence was admissible but sought to lead reply evidence of the accused's dated criminal record for violent offences.

The court held that the accused could lead the evidence.

If the accused limited the evidence to the period of May to August 2019, the Crown could not lead reply evidence of the accused's criminal record.

However, if the accused led evidence of the victim's propensity predating May 2019, the Crown would be permitted to lead reply evidence of the accused's record, provided the underlying facts of the convictions were also adduced to prevent undue prejudice.

The accused, charged with murder, brought a pre-trial application under the O'Connor framework for the production of a key Crown witness's third-party psychiatric records.

The witness, who had a history of schizophrenia, had given a statement to police about a conversation with the accused shortly after the murder.

The court dismissed the application at the first stage, finding the records were not 'likely relevant'.

The court held that the request was overbroad and rested on impermissible stereotypes about mental illness, as there was no case-specific evidence that the witness's condition impaired her ability to observe, retain, or recount the events at the material times.

In a criminal trial involving charges related to sexual services, the defence requested several specific jury instructions during a pre-charge conference.

The trial judge declined to give a Vetrovec warning, finding the complainant was not an inherently unreliable witness.

The judge also refused to instruct the jury on the material benefit exception under s. 286.2(4) of the Criminal Code, as the evidence did not support its application.

The judge agreed to provide a specific instruction regarding the frailty of text message evidence due to the complainant's admission of deleting texts.

Finally, the judge ruled that 'control, direction, or influence over the movements of a person' under s. 286.3(1) includes non-physical movements such as setting prices for sexual services.

During a trial involving allegations of selling sexual services, the Crown sought to introduce the accused's hotel registration cards as business records.

The Crown conceded it failed to meet the notice requirements under s. 30 of the Canada Evidence Act but argued the records were admissible under the common law exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found the records met the common law requirements for reliability and necessity.

However, the court excluded the accused's records because the Crown had explicitly stated in its pre-trial conference form that it would not rely on hearsay or its exceptions, and had never amended the form.

In a pre-trial motion, the Crown sought to admit the accused's police statement as voluntary, while the accused sought its exclusion under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging breaches of his s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights.

The accused was arrested for uttering threats in front of his family but was not advised of his right to counsel or the additional procuring charges until 11 minutes later in a separate room.

The court found the statement was voluntary and that the accused had an operating mind.

Although the court found breaches of s. 10(a) and 10(b) due to the 11-minute delay, it declined to exclude the statement under s. 24(2), concluding the breach was minor and society's interest in adjudicating the serious charges on their merits outweighed the impact of the breach.

The moving party brought a motion for summary judgment to fix child and spousal support arrears, ongoing support, and section 7 expenses, and to impute income to the responding party due to his failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that granting partial summary judgment would risk inconsistent findings at trial.

However, due to the responding party's contumelious failure to disclose, the court imputed income to him for 2018 and 2020, and ordered a trial for the remaining issues including retroactive support, further income imputation, and parenting time.

The applicant brought a motion to appoint replacement estate trustees for the estate of her late husband, following the resignation of the previous trustees amidst a highly fractious family dispute.

The applicant sought the appointment of three family members, while the responding parties sought the appointment of a neutral third party, either Scotiatrust or a senior lawyer.

The court found that the extreme animosity between the two family camps necessitated a neutral institutional trustee to prevent further litigation and ensure the estate's administration.

Scotiatrust was appointed as the Estate Trustee During Litigation.

The defendants brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's litigation guardian, arguing he was in a conflict of interest as an unsatisfied judgment creditor of the plaintiff.

The court found that the litigation guardian lacked the required indifference to the outcome of the litigation due to his status as a judgment creditor.

The motion was granted, the litigation guardian was removed, and the Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed in his place.

The accused, charged with assault and sexual assault, brought an application for the production of third-party records, specifically police occurrence reports and officers' notes relating to previous complaints made by the complainant.

Following an initial ruling, the court reviewed the officers' notes to determine appropriate redactions.

The court ordered the release of the notes to the accused, subject to redactions protecting the identity and privacy of third parties and removing references to a separate youth record.

The plaintiffs (daughter and her partner) sued the defendant (father) for specific performance or damages for breach of an alleged oral agreement to sell the family home to them.

The plaintiffs moved into the home and completed extensive renovations, believing they had an agreement to purchase the home at a discounted price and an extension of the closing date.

The court found that there was no enforceable oral agreement to transfer the property because there was no meeting of the minds on the fundamental term of price, nor was there an agreement to extend the closing date.

The claim for specific performance was dismissed as the property was not objectively unique.

However, the court awarded the plaintiffs $178,860.70 in damages for unjust enrichment to compensate them for the cost of the renovations that increased the value of the defendant's home.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the jury notices filed by the defendants in two related actions: a motor vehicle accident claim and a broker negligence claim.

The plaintiffs argued the trial was too complex for a jury and cited uncertainties regarding jury trials due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion, adopting a modified 'wait-and-see' approach, holding that it was premature to strike the jury notices for a trial scheduled seven months away, and that the actions were not too complex for a jury.

Following a settlement on parenting issues where the respondent admitted to a campaign of parental alienation, the applicant sought full indemnity costs.

The court awarded the applicant $146,013.55 in full indemnity costs, noting the respondent's unreasonable and bad faith conduct throughout the litigation.

Additionally, the court varied a previous costs order against the applicant to $0.00, as it had been based on the respondent's false affidavit.

The litigation guardian for the plaintiff, who sustained catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident and lacked capacity, sought court approval for the settlement of his tort and accident benefits claims.

The court found the settlement amounts of $300,000 for the tort claim and $400,000 for the accident benefits claim to be fair and reasonable.

However, the court found the contingency fee agreement with the plaintiff's lawyers to be neither fair nor reasonable, as it was signed when the lawyers doubted the plaintiff's capacity.

The court reduced the legal fees to 17% for the accident benefits claim and 25% for the tort claim.

The plaintiff brought an action against his former employee and her company for repayment of an alleged oral loan used to lease a commercial truck.

The defendants argued the funds were a gift or, alternatively, loaned to the corporation rather than the individual defendant.

The court assessed the credibility of the parties and concluded the funds were a loan made personally to the individual defendant.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiff in the amount of $34,459, representing the proven advances, plus 5% interest pursuant to the Interest Act.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) to strike the plaintiffs' claims for declaratory relief regarding express, resulting, and constructive trusts, as well as fraudulent conveyances.

The plaintiffs, who are judgment creditors, alleged that the defendants transferred properties to their spouses to defeat creditors.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the plaintiffs had pleaded sufficient facts to support their claims and that it was not plain and obvious the claims would fail.

The court also granted the plaintiffs' countermotion for a discovery plan.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change the child's primary residence to her home in Barrie and enroll him in a local school.

The respondent father opposed, seeking to maintain the status quo of week-about parenting with the child attending school virtually in Pembroke due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the mother failed to prove a move to Barrie was in the child's best interests, noting the child's established connections in Pembroke.

Applying recent jurisprudence, the court held there is a presumption that in-person schooling is in a child's best interest absent compelling evidence to the contrary, which the father failed to provide.

The court ordered the child to reside primarily with the father and attend school in person in Pembroke, with the mother having alternate weekend access.