W. Danial Newton

The applicant sought remedies under the Business Corporations Act after discovering the respondent co-director had forged his signature on pandemic relief loans and deposited fraudulent cheques, leaving the corporation in debt.

The respondent admitted to the forgeries.

The court granted judgment for the $35,000 the applicant paid to cover the overdraft, awarded $25,000 in punitive damages, set aside the forged loan agreements and personal guarantees, and awarded substantial indemnity costs.

The appellant municipality appealed a Drainage Referee's order denying it costs and sought a declaration that a referee who conducts a pre-hearing cannot preside at the hearing.

The respondent landowners cross-appealed the Referee's finding that a proposed drainage project was an 'improvement' under the Drainage Act rather than a new drainage works requiring a petition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the costs award and holding that a declaration was unnecessary given existing rules.

The cross-appeal was also dismissed, as the Referee correctly distinguished prior case law and made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the project was an improvement despite an increase in capacity.

The mother appealed a summary judgment order concerning the protection of and access to her child.

At the hearing, the parties presented a mutually acceptable agreement to dismiss the appeal on consent.

The Children's Aid Society undertook not to place the child for adoption without consent for seven months, to evaluate the possibility of reintegration, to increase access to at least twice a month, and to bring an early status review application if reintegration is deemed possible.

The Divisional Court granted the consent endorsement request and dismissed the appeal on those terms.

The accused was convicted of first degree murder and kidnapping in relation to a drug debt.

The court sentenced the accused to the mandatory life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years for first degree murder.

For the kidnapping conviction, considering the accused's role as an aider and his limited criminal record compared to his co-accused, the court imposed a concurrent sentence of 15 years imprisonment.

The accused was arrested for drug trafficking and a loaded handgun was found in his vehicle pursuant to a search warrant.

At trial, the accused brought a Charter application to exclude the handgun, alleging breaches of his ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) rights.

The court found no breaches of ss. 8 or 9, as there were reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and the strip search was necessary.

However, the court found a breach of s. 10(b) because the police unreasonably delayed the accused's right to counsel for their own convenience prior to executing a search warrant.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the evidence should not be excluded, as the breach was not causally connected to the discovery of the firearm and society has a heightened interest in adjudicating serious firearms offences on the merits.

The offender was convicted of first degree murder and kidnapping with a firearm in relation to a drug debt.

The court imposed the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years for the murder.

For the kidnapping, the court agreed with the Crown that the context of enforcing a drug debt required denunciation and deterrence, imposing a concurrent life sentence.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he committed professional misconduct by sexually abusing an adolescent patient and engaging in disgraceful conduct towards another adolescent boy.

The Committee ordered the mandatory revocation of his certificate of registration.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Committee made palpable and overriding errors of fact and held his evidence to an uneven standard of scrutiny.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee properly evaluated the evidence, made reasonable credibility findings, and correctly concluded the conduct amounted to masturbation requiring mandatory revocation.

The parties in a high-conflict divorce sought a determination on decision-making authority, parenting time, and child support for their two daughters.

The court granted the mother final decision-making authority due to the parties' inability to communicate effectively and the father's ongoing anger and trust issues.

A 7/7 shared parenting schedule with a midweek visit was ordered to provide stability and reduce exchanges.

Child support payable by the father was reduced by half to $295.50 monthly, as the mother chose not to work while on maternity leave with a new child, and her new partner earned a significant income.

The plaintiffs brought an action against a child welfare agency following the suicide of a teenager in its care.

After the expiry of the two-year limitation period under the Trustee Act, the plaintiffs sought to add a doctor and a hospital as defendants, arguing that the late discovery of a clinical note constituted special circumstances or fraudulent concealment.

The moving parties brought summary judgment motions to dismiss the action against them as statute-barred.

The court granted the motions, finding no evidence of fraudulent concealment and concluding that the plaintiffs' delay in pursuing the action and seeking to add the parties did not justify extending the limitation period.

The father brought a motion seeking supervised parenting time and alcohol testing for the mother following her involvement in a motor vehicle accident with the children, which resulted in impaired driving charges.

He also sought the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found the father did not meet the onus to require supervised parenting time, noting the mother's clean driving record and the lack of a Children's Aid Society recommendation for supervision.

However, the court ordered the mother to abstain from alcohol during and prior to parenting time and prohibited her from driving with the children.

The court also ordered the partition and sale of the matrimonial home, granting the mother 60 days to attempt to purchase the father's interest.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Myers J. dated March 2, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $1,095.99.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and fixed the costs of the motion at $5,000, with the determination of entitlement reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded all-inclusive costs of $3,500 to the municipal respondent and $5,000 to the regional and corporate respondents, payable within 30 days.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of J.R. McCarthy J. dated December 22, 2021.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicant father brought a motion for a temporary order for shared parenting time, which he amended to seek primary care and supervised parenting time for the respondent mother after she was involved in a serious motor vehicle accident with the children in the car and charged with impaired driving.

The mother did not file responding material regarding the accident.

The court ordered a temporary shared parenting arrangement on a week-on, week-off basis, but required the mother's parenting time to be continuously supervised.

The court also ordered the mother to abstain from alcohol and nonprescription drugs during and 24 hours prior to her parenting time, and prohibited her from operating a motor vehicle with the children as passengers.

The 18-year-old Indigenous offender was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder and one count of attempted murder after shooting his father and best friend while intoxicated.

The court accepted a joint submission for a life sentence with no parole eligibility for 18 years for the murders, and a concurrent 10-year sentence for the attempted murder.

The court heavily weighed Gladue factors, the offender's youth, lack of prior record, and expressions of remorse, balancing them against the devastating impact on the remote First Nation community.

This decision addresses cross-motions for temporary relief in a family law matter concerning an eight-year-old child.

The mother sought sole decision-making and child support, while the father sought joint decision-making, a residence restriction, and increased parenting time.

The court ordered the father to pay child support based on his income, disallowing a deduction for prior support obligations for the temporary order.

Joint decision-making was granted, and the existing parenting schedule was maintained, denying the father's request for more frequent weekend time.

The mother consented to the residence restriction.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) brought a motion for direction regarding the return of property purchased by Kristina Munson, former attorney for property for Jean Cherneyko, and third parties (Munson's father and common-law partner) using Cherneyko's funds.

A previous court order had terminated Munson's power of attorney and ordered her to repay over $334,000.

The PGT argued that the "doctrine of knowing receipt" applied to the third parties who received property purchased with these funds.

The court found the doctrine applicable, obliging the third parties to return the property or its value, even if initially received innocently, as they were now aware of the breach of trust.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) to screen out his complaint against officers of the London Police Service.

The applicant alleged that the officers discriminated against him based on his gender during an intimate partner dispute.

The OIPRD screened out the complaint under s. 60(4) of the Police Services Act, concluding that the underlying issues regarding access to the matrimonial home and corporate property were better suited for family, civil, or landlord and tenant courts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and holding that the OIPRD's decision was reasonable and adequately explained.

The appellants appealed a costs order from a summary judgment motion where they were granted an injunction regarding a wood stove and $1,500 in damages for nuisance, but no costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the respondents had offered to consent to the injunction early on and the appellants had claimed $60,000 in damages but only recovered $1,500.

The court found no error in principle in the motion judge's decision that each party bear their own costs.