W. Danial Newton

This case involved a dispute over a real estate transaction where the plaintiff sought specific performance and the defendant counterclaimed for breach of contract and conversion of a trailer.

The parties had an informal agreement for the sale of property for $40,000, which the plaintiff paid in installments and began renovations.

The transaction failed to close due to the defendant's later assertion that the price was $80,000, influenced by an unexpected mortgage amount.

The court found the defendant's claim of an $80,000 purchase price incredible and dismissed the counterclaim regarding the trailer due to insufficient evidence.

The court ordered specific performance, vesting title in the plaintiff.

This case concerns the trial of David Hui and Musab Saboon for the first-degree murder and kidnapping of Lee Chiodo.

The victim's body was found shot in the head on Mission Island.

The Crown's case heavily relied on the testimony of Marshall Hardy-Fox, an accomplice whose murder charge was withdrawn after he implicated the accused.

The court applied a Vetrovec warning to Hardy-Fox's evidence, scrutinizing it carefully but ultimately finding it credible due to corroborating independent evidence, including Facebook messages, surveillance videos, and forensic findings.

The court found that the kidnapping "crystallized" with threats and a gun in the car, and that the murder was both constructive (arising from the kidnapping/unlawful confinement) and planned and deliberate.

Both accused were found guilty of kidnapping and first-degree murder.

The applicant, Marcus Chac-Wai, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The total delay from arrest to the scheduled trial conclusion was 42.5 months, exceeding the 30-month Jordan ceiling for Superior Court matters.

The court deducted 4 months for exceptional circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in a net delay of 38.5 months.

The court found no defence delay attributable to the applicant regarding disclosure or the preliminary inquiry.

The Crown's proactive steps, such as severance or preferring an indictment, were considered.

The application was granted, and the charges were stayed due to unreasonable delay.

The applicants sought leave to appeal an arbitral award that dismissed their claims against former employees for breach of a non-solicitation clause and breach of confidence.

The applicants alleged the arbitrator committed several errors of law, including finding that responding to a Request for Proposal did not constitute solicitation and failing to find a breach of confidence.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the alleged errors were either questions of mixed fact and law or not errors of law, and would not significantly affect the rights of the parties.

The Law Society of Ontario applied for a permanent injunction against a former paralegal whose license was revoked for misappropriation of trust funds.

Despite the revocation, the respondent continued to provide legal services and hold herself out as a licensed paralegal on social media.

The respondent did not appear at the hearing.

The court granted the permanent injunction under the Law Society Act and awarded costs to the applicant.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board upholding her attending psychiatrist's finding that she was incapable of consenting to treatment for bipolar disorder.

The appellant argued the Board erred in its capacity finding and that she was denied procedural fairness due to late disclosure of documents.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's application of the capacity test and noting that procedural fairness requirements were met as the appellant's counsel at the Board hearing had an opportunity to review the documents and did not seek an adjournment.

The applicant wife brought a motion for temporary exclusive possession of the jointly owned matrimonial home and temporary spousal support.

The parties had been living under the same roof for almost two years post-separation.

The court dismissed the motion for exclusive possession, finding insufficient evidence that the husband's alleged behaviour constituted violence under s. 24(3) of the Family Law Act.

The court granted temporary spousal support, ordering the husband to pay $1,500 per month and half of the home's carrying costs.

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary child support from the respondent step-mother.

The parties had signed a separation agreement two years post-separation wherein the applicant acknowledged the respondent had no obligation to support his children.

Given the conflicting affidavit evidence regarding whether the respondent demonstrated a settled intention to treat the children as her own, and the clear terms of the separation agreement, the court found no prima facie case for temporary relief.

The motion was dismissed, with the issue left for the imminent trial.

The applicant, an Indigenous child welfare agency, sought judicial review of a Minister's decision amending the designations of child welfare agencies in the Thunder Bay area.

The decision expanded the jurisdiction of another Indigenous agency to provide services to its affiliated families residing in Thunder Bay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Minister's decision was a policy decision that met the requirements of procedural fairness and was reasonable under the Vavilov framework.

The appellants appealed a trial decision dismissing their claims for breach of a settlement agreement, defamation, wrongful interference, and oppression, while upholding a small claim for unpaid invoices.

The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's failure to find an accord and satisfaction regarding the unpaid invoices.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or application of the law.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondents.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter for her role in the group beating death of a vulnerable, intoxicated victim.

The court considered significant Gladue factors, the offender's youth, her genuine remorse, and her substantial rehabilitative efforts while in pre-sentence custody.

Balancing the high moral culpability of the prolonged assault with the offender's rehabilitative prospects, the court imposed a sentence equivalent to 6 1/3 years, resulting in 2 years less a day of further custody followed by 3 years of probation.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder, attempted murder, and assault following a shooting in a remote First Nation community that left his father and friend dead.

The Crown conceded first-degree murder could not be proven, and the accused argued his advanced intoxication negated the specific intent for second-degree murder.

The court found that despite his intoxication, the accused's actions and statements demonstrated he had the requisite intent for second-degree murder.

The court also found his actions in searching for the surviving witness with a loaded firearm went beyond mere preparation, resulting in a conviction for attempted murder.

The applicant sought judicial review of a housing cooperative's decision that she was no longer eligible for a Rent-Geared-to-Income subsidy after refusing an offer for a one-bedroom unit.

The applicant argued the cooperative lacked the delegated authority to make this determination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the service manager had expressly delegated the authority to determine eligibility and consider extenuating circumstances to the cooperative.

The court also found the cooperative's decision that the applicant failed to establish extenuating circumstances was reasonable.

The parties were common law spouses who cohabited for 13 years and had two children.

Following separation, the applicant father sought child support, spousal support, and half the increased value of the respondent mother's pension based on unjust enrichment.

The court imputed income to the father for child support purposes, finding him underemployed after starting his own business.

The court dismissed the father's claims for spousal support, finding no compensatory or non-compensatory basis, and dismissed his claim for a share of the mother's pension, finding no clear link between his contributions and the pension's growth.

Dilico Anishinabek Family Care appealed an order dismissing its motion to strike a custody application brought by the foster parents of an Indigenous child.

The child had been placed with the foster parents under an alternative care agreement, while a customary care agreement was in place with the child's First Nation.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in concluding that out-of-court customary care agreements fall outside the CYFSA.

The court held that the applicants were foster parents and thus prohibited from bringing a custody application under the CLRA, and that deference was owed to the placement decision of the agency acting under the authority of the First Nation.

The accused, a 28-year-old first-time offender, pleaded guilty to possessing 520 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a five-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, finding that a conditional sentence would not adequately address these objectives given the quantity of drugs and the profit motive.

The accused was sentenced to two years less a day of imprisonment, followed by three years of probation.

The applicants, owners of abutting properties, brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that a trail known as Neva Road East is their lawful property and that a municipal by-law granting ownership to the respondent township is invalid.

The township argued the trail is a municipal road established through historical dedication and acceptance.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that material facts regarding actual notice, historical use, and representations made to the applicants were in dispute and could not be resolved on a summary basis.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division upholding the revocation of his license and a costs award for professional misconduct.

The misconduct included charging grossly excessive fees, failing to comply with court orders to reimburse his client, and rendering false accounts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Law Society had parallel jurisdiction with the courts to review retainer agreements and find professional misconduct for breaching court orders.

The court upheld the penalty of revocation, noting the appellant's dishonesty and fundamental disrespect for his obligations as a lawyer.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the jury notice in a personal injury action arising from a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The trial was originally scheduled for November 2020 but was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that waiting for a civil jury trial, which was unlikely to proceed before the fall of 2022, would cause patently prejudicial delay.

The motion was granted, the jury notice was struck, and the matter was directed to be placed on a civil non-jury running list.

The applicant pharmacy sought judicial review of a decision by the Executive Officer of the Ontario Drug Benefit Program to revoke its billing privileges.

The Executive Officer found the pharmacy had made over $87,000 in unsubstantiated billings and over $62,000 in improper billings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Executive Officer's decision was reasonable and that the applicant was not denied procedural fairness.