W. Danial Newton

The defendant, Seargeant Picard Incorporated (SP), moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs', Scott and Rachel Saxberg (the Saxbergs), action on the grounds that the claim was barred by the Limitations Act, having not been commenced within two years of discovery.

SP argued the claim was discoverable in October 2012 when they refused to perform certain recommended "repairs" at their cost.

The Saxbergs contended the issues were "upgrades" and the true extent of damage was not discovered until June 2015, when extensive water damage was uncovered during subsequent work.

The court dismissed SP's motion, finding that the Saxbergs' claim was discovered in June 2015, and therefore, the action commenced on July 25, 2016, was within the two-year limitation period.

This decision addresses the costs arising from an unsuccessful challenge by the applicant to two purported codicils.

The respondent Estate sought substantial indemnity costs, citing the applicant's vexatious conduct, including prolonging the proceeding, refusing to produce evidence, and harassing the Estate and its counsel.

The court found the applicant's actions improper and vexatious, warranting costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Estate was awarded $67,214.45 in costs, with certain administrative and duplicative articling student fees disallowed from the Estate's bill of costs.

The accused, Jett Leishman, successfully applied for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay in his sexual assault trial.

The trial was scheduled 35 months after his arrest, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling from R. v. Jordan.

The court found no deductible defence delay, rejecting the Crown's arguments that defence requests for a non-existent video statement constituted delay.

The primary cause of delay was the Crown's 17-month failure to discover and disclose the complainant's video statement.

The court concluded the net delay of 1077 days (165 days above the ceiling) was unreasonable, breaching the accused's Charter right, and granted the stay.

This motion concerned a claim for damages against a nurse, Lindsey Coyle, who falsified medication orders and failed to administer medication to patient Hermina Fletcher, leading to Ms. Fletcher's death from morphine toxicity.

Coyle had pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death.

The plaintiffs, Ms. Fletcher's Estate, her son, and granddaughter, sued Coyle for damages.

Coyle did not defend the action.

The court found that the common law doctrine of fraudulent concealment suspended the limitation period, making the action timely.

Coyle was found liable.

The court assessed general damages for the Estate at $25,000 and damages for loss of care, guidance, and companionship under the Family Law Act for the son at $40,000 and the granddaughter at $25,000.

The motion also granted a sealing order, a bar order preventing Coyle from seeking contribution or indemnity, and awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis ($40,000), with the balance of the motion adjourned for the determination of punitive damages.

The case involves a dispute over decision-making responsibility and parenting time for a child, Anna, following the separation of her birth mother (Respondent) and her former spouse (Applicant).

The primary issue was the Respondent's desire to relocate the child from Fort Frances, Ontario, to Saskatchewan.

The court considered the child's best interests, including stability, existing relationships, history of care, and the impact of relocation.

The court found that relocation would be detrimental to the child and granted the Applicant sole decision-making responsibility, with the child to reside primarily with the Applicant in Fort Frances.

The Ontario Aboriginal Housing Support Services Corporation (OAH) applied for a declaration that Patricia Ann Aho was a trespasser at 239 Earl Road and for a writ of possession.

Ms. Aho had temporarily occupied the Earl Road property after her original mortgaged home became uninhabitable.

The court found an oral agreement existed where Ms. Aho was to continue mortgage payments for her original property while OAH covered normal maintenance at Earl Road.

Ms. Aho breached this agreement by ceasing mortgage payments in 2005, claiming offsets for expenses OAH was not obligated to cover.

The court declared Ms. Aho a trespasser and granted OAH possession, with a 120-day stay to allow Ms. Aho to apply for subsidized housing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision regarding the calculation of 'full net pay' for disabled firefighters under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator had ruled that the employer could deduct notional OMERS pension plan contributions from the calculation of full net pay, even when the employee had a disability waiver in place, to ensure continuity of take-home pay rather than providing a windfall.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was justified and unassailable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder for stabbing his 18-year-old stepbrother to death.

The mandatory sentence of life imprisonment was imposed.

The Crown sought an 18-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought the minimum 10 years.

The court considered the aggravating factors, including the familial relationship, the victim's vulnerability, and the offender's criminal record, alongside mitigating factors such as remorse.

The court set the period of parole ineligibility at 15 years.

This motion concerned the enforcement of a prior court order for the sale of jointly owned real property.

The respondent, Jason Andrew Whiting, failed to cooperate with the sale process, including accepting a written offer and vacating the premises, despite previous warnings and opportunities to provide evidence of alternative buyers.

The court found no justification for further delay, declared the existing agreement of purchase and sale binding, and ordered the respondent to vacate the property by a specified date.

Costs were fixed against the respondent.

This case concerns the Crown's application to unseal journalistic material (unedited interview footage) obtained via a production order, which was initially sealed.

The journalist, Jamie Kastner, and an intervenor, the Canadian Association of Journalists (CAJ), opposed the unsealing, arguing for broader notice requirements and reconsideration of the production order based on the "no other way" and "public interest" tests, and the potential "chilling effect" on journalism.

The court confirmed its decision to issue the production order and granted the unsealing, finding that the information could not reasonably be obtained otherwise, no confidential sources were involved, and the public interest in prosecuting criminal offences outweighed the journalist's privacy rights, especially given the prior publication of the documentary.

In a medical malpractice action alleging a misdiagnosed spinal cord injury, the defendants moved for an order requiring the plaintiff to undergo a neuropsychological assessment.

The motion was brought eight years after the statement of defence and nine months before trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence to support an allegation of cognitive impairment, and concluding that the elements of fairness, necessity, and prejudice weighed against ordering the examination at such a late stage.

The Crown sought to have Patrick Kanate declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence following his guilty plea to multiple offences committed while detained, including hostage-taking and assaulting a peace officer.

The court reviewed Kanate's extensive criminal history, institutional misconduct, and a psychiatric assessment which diagnosed antisocial personality disorder and substance use disorders, noting his ambivalence towards changing his lifestyle.

Despite considering Gladue principles and the systemic factors impacting Indigenous offenders, the court found that Kanate presented a high and intractable risk of violent recidivism.

Concluding that no lesser measure would adequately protect the public, the court declared him a dangerous offender and imposed an indeterminate sentence, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a non-communication order with the victim.

The applicant, Gary William Craib, brought a motion seeking interim orders to restrain the respondent, James Alexander Craib, from exercising authority over assets of their father, Stanley William Craib, and their late mother, Anne Elizabeth Craib's estate.

Gary alleged dissipation of assets by James.

James opposed the motion, arguing Gary lacked standing.

The court dismissed Gary's motion, finding he lacked standing and the motion was premature.

The court directed the Public Guardian and Trustee to arrange legal representation for Stanley to assess his capacity and address issues related to the mother's estate and the power of attorney for property.

This trial determined whether the unmarried parties, Warren Muir and Lucille Schaaf, were "spouses" as defined by section 29 of the Family Law Act, which requires continuous cohabitation in a conjugal relationship for at least three years.

The court assessed the credibility of both parties, finding the applicant's testimony unreliable due to inconsistencies and self-serving statements.

Relying on the respondent's evidence and objective factors such as shared residences, financial support, and societal perception (Molodowich factors), the court concluded that the parties were indeed spouses from sometime in 2015/2016 to early 2022, satisfying the statutory definition.

The Law Society of Ontario appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division, which upheld a nine-month suspension for a lawyer convicted of possessing child pornography.

The appellant argued the original hearing panel lacked jurisdiction because it did not include a lay adjudicator, contrary to O. Reg. 167/07.

The Divisional Court majority agreed, finding the panel was improperly constituted and lacked jurisdiction, as there was no evidence the Chair exercised discretion to depart from the mandatory requirement.

The appeal was granted and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The mother brought a motion seeking compliance with an income disclosure order, sale of a jointly owned duplex, and occupation rent from the father.

The father had delayed financial disclosure and resisted the sale and occupation rent.

The court ordered the sale of the duplex by September 30, 2023, with net proceeds held in trust, finding the father had not met the onus to preclude sale despite potential equalization prejudice and disruption to children.

The claim for occupation rent was deferred to trial due to unknown variables.

The mother was awarded partial indemnity costs of $2500.

The accused, Mark-Jeffrey Buckley, brought an application under s. 714.233 of the Criminal Code to appear by videoconference for pre-trial Charter applications in his indictable offence trial.

He argued that these applications were not part of the "trial" and thus did not require Crown consent under s. 715.24.

The Crown opposed, asserting that such applications are integral to the trial, thereby requiring Crown consent under s. 715.233.

The court dismissed the application, concluding that pre-trial Charter applications to exclude evidence are indeed part of the normal trial process, bearing on the substantive conduct of the trial, and therefore, the prosecutor's consent is a necessary precondition for remote appearance in an indictable offence trial.

A solicitor commenced an action for unpaid fees four days after delivering the bill, contravening the Solicitors Act.

The client obtained an order for assessment.

The solicitor moved to consolidate his action with the assessment and sought *nunc pro tunc* leave to commence the action early, citing personal circumstances and alleged client intent to depart Ontario.

The client moved to stay or dismiss the action.

The court dismissed the solicitor's action as an abuse of process, finding no probable cause for early commencement under the Act and that personal circumstances were not justification.

The motions for consolidation and to amend the statement of claim were also dismissed.

The plaintiff, Canadian Lakehead Exhibition (CLE), brought a motion seeking to find the defendant, 1723022 Ontario Ltd. General Partner of The Sportsdome Limited Partnership ("Sportsdome"), and its president, Robert Zanette, in contempt of a January 20, 2022 order.

The original order required production of specific financial and insurance documents and attendance at an examination in aid of execution.

The court found Sportsdome and Zanette in contempt, satisfying the three-part test for civil contempt (clear order, actual knowledge, and intentional breach) beyond a reasonable doubt.

They were given 30 days to purge the contempt, failing which CLE could move to the penalty phase, and costs were awarded to CLE on a substantial indemnity basis.

This motion concerned temporary parenting and decision-making responsibilities for four children following parental separation.

The father sought joint decision-making and shared parenting, while the mother sought sole decision-making and primary parenting with limited time for the father, along with an order for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found that the existing 2/2/5/5 shared parenting schedule was not unilaterally imposed and was meeting the children's needs for stability.

Allegations of the father's mental health, substance abuse, and violence were not substantiated by evidence or CAS records.

The court granted the father's motion for joint decision-making and shared parenting, dismissing the mother's request for sole decision-making and restricted parenting time.

Child support was set based on offsetting incomes.

The parties agreed that the father would have an opportunity to purchase the matrimonial home before a sale order.