W. Danial Newton

The moving parties sought an order allowing the registration of a Certificate of Pending Litigation against recreational real estate near Kenora, Ontario.

The property was transferred two days after the death of the original owner through a right of survivorship and then to the respondent Parks, allegedly as a gift.

The estate trustee and beneficiary challenged the validity of the transfer due to suspicious circumstances and the failure to produce the transfer documents.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing a full hearing was necessary.

The court granted the Certificate of Pending Litigation, finding the test was met and the purpose of the procedure justified its issuance despite the motion being brought on notice.

The accused was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking (290 grams), possession of oxycodone, and possession of proceeds of crime exceeding $5,000.

At sentencing, the Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of two to two and one-half years, emphasizing general and specific deterrence given the significant drug trafficking problem in the region.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day with credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of 729 days (two years less a day) with a Summers credit of 443 days for pre-sentence custody and a Duncan credit of 100 days for harsh conditions (lockdowns and triple bunking), resulting in an effective sentence of 186 days in custody.

Concurrent sentences were imposed for the other offences.

Ancillary orders included a 10-year weapons prohibition, DNA sample order, and forfeiture of drugs and proceeds.

The applicant sought to discharge a claim for lien registered by the respondent on September 11, 2025, in the amount of $63,740 for roofing work.

The respondent claimed the lien was for work performed on August 16, 2025, to correct deficiencies and secure the manufacturer's warranty.

The court found that the cost of correction was approximately $580, which fell below the threshold for deemed completion under the Construction Act (1% of contract price or $5,000, whichever is less).

Since the correction costs were only $580 against a contract price of $198,000 (1% threshold of $1,980), the contract was deemed completed and the lien was out of time.

The claim for lien was discharged.

The defendant brought a motion seeking to transfer the action from Brampton (Central West Region) to Fort Frances (Northwest Region) and to require the plaintiff to post security for costs.

The plaintiff, a Colorado corporation conducting dog agility shows, sued the defendant for breach of contract, breach of confidential information, intentional damage to personal property, bad faith, libel, slander, and unlawful interference with economic relations.

The defendant, a resident of Fort Frances, was served there.

The court found that none of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Ontario, no damages were sustained there, and the subject matter had no connection to Brampton.

The court granted the transfer to Fort Frances and ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in the amount of $5,000 within 30 days, finding the plaintiff had not met its onus of demonstrating sufficient assets in Ontario or a reciprocating jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, Bridgepoint Financial Services Limited Partnership I, brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant, Rudolf Steinberg, who failed to deliver a Statement of Defence and was noted in default.

The defendant had entered into five litigation loan agreements with the plaintiff from 2013 to 2014, receiving $65,000 at interest rates of 20% and 24% compounded semi-annually.

The loans were related to the defendant's claim against Pamela Adderley for motor vehicle accident damages.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's action against Adderley and the dismissal of his appeals, the plaintiff demanded repayment.

The court granted default judgment, finding that the dismissal of the action constituted a Material Adverse Change triggering repayment obligations, and that the interest rates had been determined to be lawful by prior court decisions.

The Crown brought an application alleging that the accused breached a Conditional Sentence Order by sending a text message to his son in violation of a no-contact condition.

The accused denied sending the message, testifying that while the email account used to send the message was associated with his business, he had never used it to contact his son and could not cancel the account as it was owned by his former spouse.

The court found that the Crown had not established the identity of the sender on a balance of probabilities and dismissed the application.

The court considered whether to stay or dismiss an action under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff, self-represented, filed a claim against four defendants arising from a family law proceeding in which she was unsuccessful.

The plaintiff's claim was based on assertions regarding jury trial rights in family law proceedings, allegations of interference with her rights, and complaints about statutory personhood and legal representation.

The court found the claim was readily recognizable as devoid of merit and dismissed the action.

A family law trial involving disputes over child support, spousal support, and equalization of family property following the breakdown of a marriage.

The parties cohabited for approximately two years and five months (March 2014 to August 2017) and were married on August 9, 2014.

The applicant mother sought spousal support and equalization; the respondent father disputed the amounts and certain valuations.

The court determined child support arrears, awarded limited-term spousal support on a compensatory basis, and ordered an equalization payment based on adjusted valuations of family assets.

The applicant, a mortgagee who sold a newly constructed home under power of sale, sought judicial review of Tarion's decision that it was a 'vendor' responsible for statutory warranties under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, upholding Tarion's finding that a mortgagee selling under power of sale is a vendor, relying on established precedent.

The court also rejected arguments that the home was sold 'as-is', noting the Act prohibits contracting out of statutory warranties, and declined to consider new arguments not raised before Tarion.

The accused sought an adjournment of his trial scheduled for September 8-10, 2025, on a charge of sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

The accused's counsel sought to explore prior relationship evidence that might trigger a s. 276 application and to conduct a thorough review of the accused's cellphone, texts, and social media accounts.

The Crown opposed the adjournment, noting that the accused's counsel had ample opportunity to prepare and that the cellphone contained nothing relevant to s. 276.

The court granted the adjournment, finding that while counsel's conduct had resulted in unnecessary delay and wasted judicial resources, the accused's right to a fair trial and the potential for an appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel justified the adjournment.

The accused waived s. 11(b) Charter rights and all delay to the new trial date was attributed to the defence.

The appellant contractor appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent subcontractor $852,416.50 for dewatering services and extra work on a municipal roadworks project.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by admitting hearsay documents as business records and by inferring that the appellant had authorized the extra work by submitting the claims to the project owner.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the business records exception under the Evidence Act and made factual findings supported by the voluminous record.

Hydro One Networks Inc. applied for orders to adjust the dates of possession in Notices of Possession under the Expropriations Act, to allow the application to proceed in the absence of a representative of the estate of James Thomas Witzell, and to dispense with service on the estate of Witzell and Susan Carol Boyes.

The application concerned the Waasigan Transmission Line Project, a 360 km electricity transmission line project in Northwestern Ontario.

Hydro One sought to abbreviate the notice period by 32 days to allow construction to begin on schedule.

The court granted the relief sought, finding that adjustment was in the public interest and that no prejudice to landowners was demonstrated.

The accused was charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of Antoine Bouchard on January 23, 2022, in Thunder Bay.

The accused admitted to shooting the victim but claimed self-defence, asserting that the victim and two others were attempting to rob him while armed.

The Crown presented forensic evidence, including post-mortem examination findings and ballistics analysis.

Key witnesses included the alleged robbers and the accused.

The court found that the accused reasonably believed force was imminent, acted for the purpose of self-defence, and that his response was proportional to the threat faced.

The accused was acquitted of second-degree murder.

The appellant sought to appeal an order dismissing his motion to vary a final family law order.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 that the appeal may be dismissed as frivolous.

The appellant argued that an annulment of his marriage extinguished his obligations under the prior order.

The court found the appeal devoid of merit, noting the prior order remained valid despite the subsequent annulment, and dismissed the appeal.

The court considered sentencing for G.M. following guilty pleas to two counts of sexual assault against his stepchildren.

The court rejected a joint submission for a four-year sentence, finding it inadequate given the gravity, duration, and breach of trust involved in the offences.

The decision reviews relevant case law and sentencing principles for sexual offences against children, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

The court provided G.M. the opportunity to apply to withdraw his guilty plea.

The appellant tenant appealed and sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating her tenancy for the landlords' family use.

She argued that her paralegal provided ineffective assistance by conceding the landlords' good faith without her instructions.

The Divisional Court majority dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to raise the ineffective assistance issue before the LTB in a timely manner.

The majority further held that in civil proceedings, the remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel is a claim against the representative, not the reversal of a valid administrative decision, and declined to extend the criminal law doctrine to this context.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing.

This decision concerns the interpretation of an insurance policy following a flood at the City of Thunder Bay’s wastewater pollution control plant.

The central issue was whether increased repair costs required by building code upgrades were subject to a $10 million sub-limit.

The court found that the policy was unambiguous and that the sub-limit applied to all code compliance costs, rejecting the City’s argument that broader coverage was available.

The court also addressed costs, awarding the insurers $25,000.

The court sentenced Marc Quirion for trafficking in methamphetamine after he pled guilty.

The sentencing considered the large quantity of drugs, Quirion’s significant criminal record, and his background, including exposure to drug culture from a young age.

The Crown sought an eight-year sentence, while the defence argued for three years less credit for time served.

The court imposed a six-year sentence, with credit for pre-sentence custody, and ordered a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture of drugs and cash.

The appellant client appealed a Superior Court decision that dismissed her motion to oppose confirmation of an Assessment Officer's certificate regarding her former solicitors' accounts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge did not err in her deferential review of the Assessment Officer's comprehensive reasons, nor did she err in concluding there was no denial of procedural fairness.

The Court also clarified that the objections process under Rule 58 is not mandatory for solicitor-client assessments under the Solicitors Act, finding prior jurisprudence to the contrary was decided per incuriam.

The decision addresses whether an appraisal conducted under section 128 of the Insurance Act is binding on an insurance broker who was not a party to the appraisal process.

The plaintiffs sought a determination under Rule 21.01(1)(a) that the appraisal’s finding of value should bind all parties, including the broker, in subsequent court proceedings.

The court held that Rule 21.01 was not the appropriate procedure for this determination, as the issue was not fully settled in law, was not raised in the pleadings, and involved mixed questions of fact and law.

The motion was dismissed.