W. Danial Newton

The accused was convicted of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking after police found 5,000 fentanyl pills in his possession during a traffic stop and hotel search.

The Crown sought a 10-year sentence, while the defence sought 4 years.

The court emphasized the extreme danger of fentanyl, the large quantity involved, and the accused's commercial motivation.

The court sentenced the accused to 8 years in custody, reduced to 4 years and 320 days after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The plaintiffs sought leave to extend the time for service of their statement of claim almost two years after the deadline.

The action alleged breach of a 1993 agreement regarding timber harvesting buffer zones.

The Crown argued the action was a nullity for failure to provide notice under s. 7 of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

The court found the plaintiffs' prior correspondence did not constitute proper notice to the Crown.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice caused by the delay in service.

The motion was dismissed and the action against both defendants was dismissed.

The appellants, tenants in a mobile home park, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision evicting them for seriously impairing the safety of others.

The eviction was based on the tenants keeping an unlawfully large number of unvaccinated feral cats, which had attacked a property manager's dog.

The appellants argued the Board erred by relying on the cats' unvaccinated status, as it was not explicitly listed as a ground in the eviction notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the ground for eviction was serious impairment of safety, and the unvaccinated status of the cats was merely evidence supporting that ground.

The majority held that the Board's decision was reasonable and entitled to deference.

In a voir dire during a personal injury jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the court ruled on the admissibility of expert evidence from three of the plaintiff's proposed medical experts.

The court permitted a chiropractor and an orthopedic surgeon to testify within their specific scopes of practice regarding musculoskeletal issues and trigger points, but precluded them from diagnosing the plaintiff's swallowing disorder (achalasia) or providing threshold opinions on that impairment.

A second chiropractor was entirely excluded from testifying due to clear bias, partisan methodology, and opining outside his area of expertise.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found his injuries from a motor vehicle accident fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied two treatment plans for assessments.

The Divisional Court held that the adjudicator made no error of law and reasonably concluded that the appellant failed to meet his burden of proving entitlement to benefits beyond the MIG cap.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant charities in two related class actions appealed a case management judge's decision declining to continue a protective order over the identities of potential class members who opted out.

The appellants argued the judge failed to consider whether the deemed or implied undertaking rules applied to this information.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the deemed undertaking rule under Rule 30.1.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure applies to the names and numbers of opt-outs disclosed by the plaintiffs' counsel to the defendants' counsel, as this information is relevant and discoverable.

The landlord appealed a trial decision finding that the tenant properly terminated a residential lease and that the landlord was not entitled to charge administrative fees as part of common area and maintenance (CAM) expenses under a commercial lease.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tenant provided notice in the manner required by the written terms of the lease, and that there was no express or implied term authorizing the landlord to unilaterally charge administrative fees.

The trial judge's interpretation of the lease was subject to deference and revealed no palpable and overriding error.

The applicants purchased property subject to a 99-year lease held by the respondent flying club.

Seven years later, the applicants sought to declare the lease void for contravening the Planning Act, arguing it was executed after an amendment that repealed an exemption for long-term leases.

The respondent argued the lease was saved by the doctrine of part performance prior to the amendment.

The court applied the four-part test for part performance and found that the respondent's actions, including surveying the property, making improvements, and paying rent, constituted part performance prior to the amendment.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for particulars of the plaintiffs' statement of claim regarding a house fire contents claim, prior to delivering its statement of defence.

The court reviewed the principles governing particulars and held that where oral discovery is available, particulars are generally limited to what a party requires to respond to a pleading.

The court found that most of the plaintiffs' allegations were pleaded with sufficient particularity to allow the defendant to plead.

However, the court struck a boilerplate claim for 'further and other damages' and ordered the plaintiffs to provide particulars of their claim for 'special damages' within 30 days.

The plaintiff was driving past a baseball stadium when a baseball hit out of the park during batting practice shattered her window and struck her head.

She sued the city, the home team, and the visiting team (the Duluth Huskies).

The visiting team moved for summary judgment, arguing a visiting team cannot be liable for balls hit out of a stadium.

The court dismissed the motion as premature, noting that pleadings were not yet closed for the other defendants and that factual issues remained regarding where the players were batting from and their knowledge of gaps in the protective netting.

The applicant wife brought a motion for temporary spousal support and an advance on equalization from the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home.

The respondent husband opposed, arguing the wife could be self-supporting and that the funds should be restricted due to her alcoholism.

The court found a prima facie case for spousal support entitlement and ordered mid-range support of $3,345 monthly.

The court also ordered the release of the home sale proceeds to the wife, finding the husband's withholding of the funds to be unconscionable.

The defendant sought leave under s. 67(2) of the Construction Lien Act to bring a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a US-based corporation.

The court applied the test for security for costs and the narrower 'instability and insolvency' test for construction lien actions.

The court found that while the plaintiff lacked liquid assets in Ontario, leave should not be granted because the defendant knew of the plaintiff's non-resident status when entering the contract, and ordering security for costs was neither necessary to level the playing field nor likely to expedite the resolution of the dispute.

The motion for leave was denied.

The Public Guardian and Trustee, acting as litigation guardian for an incapable beneficiary, brought an application to compel the estate trustee to pass the estate accounts.

The beneficiary had signed a release and received her share of the estate, but was assessed as incapable less than three months later.

The court applied section 2(4) of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, finding that the estate trustee failed to prove she did not have reasonable grounds to believe the beneficiary was incapable when the release was signed.

The application was granted and the estate trustee was ordered to pass the accounts.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after a long marriage.

The court determined three main issues: child support for their 18-year-old son, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the adult son remained a dependent child due to emotional difficulties despite not attending school full-time, ordering ongoing child support.

The court imputed income to both parties and ordered the father to pay ongoing spousal support of $2,384 monthly.

To satisfy the equalization payment and provide stability for the son, the court ordered the matrimonial home vested in the mother, with the jointly owned rental property to be sold.

The plaintiff, J.I.L.M. Enterprises & Investments Limited, sought costs following a successful trial where it was awarded damages for breach of an insurance contract and punitive damages against INTACT Insurance.

The plaintiff requested substantial indemnity costs of approximately $350,000 for fees and $124,000 for disbursements.

The defendant, INTACT, argued for partial indemnity costs, a reduction for secretarial time, improper claims, and a 25% discount for divided success.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing fees at $210,000 plus HST, and disbursements and taxes on disbursements at $115,000, after considering the complexity, importance of issues, and a modest reduction for divided success on certain claims.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the non-resident plaintiff in a slip and fall action.

The court found that the defendants' cost estimates were excessive and projected partial indemnity costs at under $10,000.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding that the plaintiff had sufficient assets in Missouri, a reciprocating jurisdiction where an Ontario costs award could be enforced, to satisfy any potential costs order.

The applicant mother sought an order to relocate the parties' two children to Winnipeg, where she had secured employment and established a new relationship.

The respondent father opposed the move, arguing the children should remain in their current community in Northwestern Ontario where they had lived for several years and where he had been their primary caregiver for the past two years.

The court applied the best interests of the child test and the mobility factors from Gordon v. Goertz and Berry v. Berry.

The court found that the mother offered greater permanence, certainty, and stability, given her secure employment and stable relationship, compared to the father's uncertain economic future.

The court ordered that the children reside primarily with the mother in Winnipeg, with generous access to the father.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for the return of his seven-year-old son after the respondent mother left the family home with the child and withheld him from school.

The mother sought interim custody, alleging verbal and emotional abuse, while the father sought a shared parenting arrangement.

The court found no evidence that either parent lacked the ability to act as a parent or that the child did not have strong ties to both.

Applying the best interests of the child factors under section 24(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court ordered the child to be returned to school and implemented a temporary shared parenting schedule where each parent has care of the child for five nights.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury claim, arguing it was barred by an 'Informed Consent Form for Physical Activities' signed by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, a Police Foundations student, was injured when he struck his head on a protruding basketball hoop while running on the college's track.

The court applied the Tercon framework and held that the waiver, read in context, applied to health-related risks and physical exertion, not to liability for defective premises under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant law firm sought an order to refer its account to assessment more than 12 months after delivery.

The applicant had represented the respondent in a personal injury claim before the respondent changed counsel.

The new counsel acknowledged an instruction to protect the applicant's account from settlement proceeds but failed to notify the applicant when the matter settled or pay the account.

The court found these constituted special circumstances under the Solicitors Act, allowing the assessment to proceed, and awarded substantial indemnity costs against the respondents.