Tzimas

The parties separated after a high-conflict marriage marked by domestic violence.

The mother sought sole decision-making, primary residence, child support, and equalization, while the father sought primary residence and joint decision-making, claiming he had the children most of the time and had minimal income.

The court ordered that primary residence remain with the mother and granted her sole decision-making authority, finding the father engaged in alienating behaviour and lacked insight into the children's best interests.

The court imputed an income of $30,000 to the father and ordered him to pay $621 per month in child support.

The father was also ordered to pay $28,097.50 to reimburse the mother for a post-separation withdrawal from their joint line of credit.

The court heard two motions in a family law proceeding.

The respondent sought child and spousal support, retroactive section 7 expenses, and authority to sell the matrimonial home.

The applicant sought to vary a preservation order to allow the sale of pharmacies.

The court dismissed both motions, finding the evidentiary records insufficient and noting the parties' complex financial arrangements and potential breaches of the preservation order.

The court ordered the matter to proceed to trial, directed the release of trust funds to pay matrimonial home debts, and ordered interim child support.

The plaintiff commercial tenants brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent their eviction, relief from forfeiture, and a declaration that a December 2020 agreement was void or rescinded due to alleged bad faith and COVID-19 eviction moratoriums.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured them, as their primary concern was a rent increase rather than the loss of the premises.

The court also held that relief from forfeiture was unavailable because the termination was based on a month-to-month tenancy rather than a breach, and that rescinding the agreement required a summary judgment motion, which was premature.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and breach of recognizance.

He pleaded guilty to the breach but not guilty to the sexual assault.

The trial centered on whether the complainant consented to sexual intercourse in the back of a vehicle.

Both the complainant and the accused testified, presenting conflicting narratives.

Applying the W.(D) framework, the court found significant credibility and reliability issues with both witnesses, including inconsistencies in the accused's testimony and a potential motive to fabricate by the complainant.

Ultimately, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of sexual assault.

The applicant tenant brought an application for a declaration that it was in compliance with its commercial lease and sought relief from forfeiture after being locked out by the respondent landlord.

The landlord alleged the tenant breached the lease by subletting to towing companies and leaving debris outside the premises.

The court found no evidence of a sublease, noting the tenant merely allowed related towing companies to temporarily park vehicles.

The court also held the landlord's Notice of Termination was deficient under s. 19(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act for lacking specificity.

The lease was declared to remain in full force and effect, and the landlord was ordered to pay $20,000 in costs due to sharp practices.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff following a slip and fall on their property.

The court applied the five-factor test for setting aside a default judgment and found that the defendants failed to act promptly, offered no plausible explanation for their two-year delay, and lacked an arguable defence on the merits.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

The Attorney General for Ontario applied ex parte for certiorari with mandamus to quash a Justice of the Peace's refusal to issue a production order against textPlus, Inc., a US-based company with a virtual presence in Canada.

The Superior Court found that the Justice of the Peace committed jurisdictional errors and errors of law by concluding that the order could not be enforced and by failing to follow binding horizontal precedent regarding virtual presence.

The Court granted the application, quashed the refusal, and compelled the Ontario Court of Justice to issue the production order.

The plaintiff attended the emergency department with symptoms of dizziness, nausea, and facial weakness, and a referral note from his family doctor requesting to rule out a stroke.

The defendant emergency physician diagnosed peripheral vertigo and Bell's Palsy, and discharged the plaintiff without conducting a gait assessment or consulting a neurologist.

The plaintiff returned the next day with a severe basilar artery occlusion, resulting in catastrophic long-term disabilities.

The court found the defendant breached the standard of care and that, but for this breach, the plaintiff would have received timely recanalization treatment with a successful outcome.

The defendant's request for a 25% discount on the agreed damages was dismissed.

The accused was found guilty of manslaughter following an armed home invasion that resulted in the fatal shooting of an unarmed victim.

The court found the accused was a party to the robbery and had subjective foresight that a loaded gun would be used, though it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the shooter.

Weighing the significant aggravating factors of an armed home invasion against the accused's youth, first-time adult offender status, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to lockdowns and COVID-19, the court imposed a sentence of 8.5 years.

After applying Summers and Duncan credits, the remaining sentence to serve was 39 months.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against two defendants, one of whom was only known by the pseudonym 'Sam', for monies advanced in a fraudulent investment scheme.

The court validated service on the unidentified defendant via email and noted both defendants in default.

The court found that the defendants engaged in civil fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation, awarding the plaintiff $104,616 in damages.

Claims for aggravated and punitive damages were dismissed.

Following a family law trial, the parties were unable to agree on costs, the reconciliation of interim orders, or the release of trust funds.

The court reconciled various advance payments and line of credit withdrawals, crediting them against the respondent's substantial equalization debt.

Due to the respondent's refusal to provide a direction to the real estate lawyer, the court ordered the endorsement to serve as sufficient direction to release the remaining trust funds to the applicant.

Finally, the court awarded the applicant $52,000 in costs, noting the respondent's persistent non-disclosure and obstructionist behaviour.

The plaintiff brought an action in negligence, nuisance, and trespass against her neighbours and the City of Vaughan, alleging that construction activities on the neighbours' property altered the grading and caused water to flow onto her property, resulting in damages.

The claims against the municipal defendants were settled during trial.

The court dismissed the remaining claims against the neighbour, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove causation.

Expert evidence established that the water problems were actually caused by the plaintiff's own landscapers, who had flattened the common swale and altered the grading on her property, preventing proper drainage.

The court found no negligence or unreasonable interference by the neighbour.

The parties separated following an incident of domestic violence.

The applicant sought sole custody, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property, including a resulting trust claim over an investment property.

The court granted the applicant primary residence and major decision-making authority, finding the respondent's unresolved anger and refusal to take responsibility contraindicated joint custody.

The respondent's access was expanded but his request for a week-about schedule was denied as premature.

The court found a resulting trust in favour of the applicant for the investment property, ordering it sold and the proceeds split equally.

The applicant's jewellery and a property in Pakistan were excluded from equalization.

A lump sum of $1,000 was awarded for spousal support.

The parties were unable to settle the terms of a formal Order following a previous decision regarding the administration of an estate.

The principal disagreements related to the compensation allowed for the respondent as Attorney and whether HST was payable.

The court fixed the respondent's compensation at $22,967.39 inclusive of HST, noting that any overpayments already received must be deducted from this amount, and provided directions for costs submissions.

The plaintiff requested a reconsideration of the court's original costs award of $38,000, noting that a sealed Rule 49 offer to settle had not been brought to the judge's attention.

The court reviewed the offer and found that the plaintiff was more successful at trial than the offer advanced.

Applying Rule 49, the court determined the plaintiff was entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

After applying reductions for duplication of effort and proportionality, the court increased the costs award to $58,000.

The accused, charged with sexual interference and sexual assault, brought an application under s. 638(1)(f) of the Criminal Code to challenge all prospective jurors for cause regarding their English language competence.

The trial was scheduled to proceed in English in Brampton.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the standard jury vetting process adequately addresses language comprehension and that the accused failed to provide an evidentiary foundation or air of reality to justify the proposed challenge for cause.

The offender was found guilty of simple assault after initiating a brawl outside a nightclub.

Although the victim suffered severe stab wounds, the court found that another individual inflicted those injuries while the offender was pinned to the ground.

The Crown sought 30 days incarceration or a 60-day conditional sentence, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

Emphasizing the offender's positive pre-sentence report, lack of prior record, and the principle of proportionality, the court granted a conditional discharge with six months of probation and 50 hours of community service.

The accused was charged with impaired driving causing death, two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm, and driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg following a head-on collision.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging breaches of his rights under ss. 7, 8, and 10(b), seeking exclusion of breath and blood samples and statements.

The court dismissed the s. 10(b) and s. 8 applications, finding the police exercised reasonable diligence in facilitating access to counsel and that blood samples were taken for medical purposes.

The court found statements to first responders voluntary, but excluded a statement to police under s. 7 due to statutory compulsion under the Highway Traffic Act.

On the substantive charges, the court rejected the accused's evidence of 'bolus drinking' and a 'third car' causing the collision, finding him guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm and drug offences after police executed a search warrant at his residence and found a loaded prohibited firearm, ammunition, and drugs in his bedroom.

The accused pleaded guilty to the drug charges but denied knowledge of the firearm and ammunition, which were found in a shared closet.

A friend of the accused testified that he had hidden the firearm and ammunition in the closet without the accused's knowledge.

Applying the W.(D.) test for credibility, the court accepted the accused's testimony and found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge of the firearm and ammunition.

The accused was acquitted of the firearm charges.

The defendant municipality brought a motion to quash the self-represented plaintiff's summons to witness of the Commissioner of Health, arguing non-compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure and that calling the witness would be an abuse of process.

The court found that the plaintiff's confusion regarding the summons requirements was justified given the chronology of events and the defendant's late notice that it would not be calling the witness.

The court validated the service of the summons and dismissed the motion to quash, noting that the plaintiff had direct interactions with the witness, making her evidence potentially relevant, though the court cautioned the plaintiff about the parameters of examination in chief.