Decisions

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

• New Decisions : Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

• 2026-07-06 Fiorenza v. Mitic, 2026 ONCJ 403 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Offers to settle — Family Law Rules, subrule 24(12) — Did any offers attract full recovery costs consequences? — Technical compliance and overall comparability assessed — Father’s spousal support offer met 24(12) but discretion exercised not to apply due to unreasonable income positions — Travel offer met 24(12) and should have been accepted — Costs consequences partly applied, partly declined<br />Procedure — Costs — Success and conduct — Who was the successful party and how should divided success and behaviour affect costs? — Presumption in favour of success under subrule 24(3) — Unreasonable positions and disclosure history considered under subrules 24(4) and 24(14) — Father more successful but with divided success — Fixed costs against mother ordered, quantum reduced for proportionality<br />Professional responsibility — Counsel liability for costs — Family Law Rules, subrule 24(11) — Should personal costs be ordered against counsel for wasted costs? — Two‑part test from Hunt v. Worrod and Galganov applied — Some disorganisation and delay found but reasonable cause established given harassment and volume — Extreme caution principle engaged — Personal costs claim against counsel dismissed<br />Statutory interpretation — Enforcement — Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, s. 1(1)(g) — Does clause 1(1)(g) permit the Director to enforce a costs order in favour of a support payor? — Purpose and text examined with Clark, Durso, Fielding — Costs enforceable as support limited to support recipients — No authority to designate costs to payor as support — Request dismissed
• 2026-07-06 Murad v. Bikich, 2026 ONCJ 404 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Child support — Imputing income — Intentional under-employment under s. 19(1)(a) of the Child Support Guidelines — Whether the payor is intentionally and unreasonably under-employed — Self-imposed reduction of income and burden shifting applied — Drygala v. Pauli followed — Prior earnings and capacity contrasted with current consulting activity — Intentional under-employment found<br />Family — Child support — Education — Reasonableness of educational plan — Are the payor’s studies a reasonable plan that requires under-employment? — Part-time online Master of Science in Analytics assessed — Lack of clear plan, program length, and labour market evidence — Quitting secure employment to retrain scrutinised — Tillmanns v. Tillmanns and Jackson v. Mayerle applied — Educational plan unreasonable<br />Family — Child support — Imputing income — Determination of appropriate amount — What income should be imputed for interim child support? — Earnings history used as rational basis — Capacity to consult at $100 an hour for twenty hours weekly — Evidence supports $100,000 gross annual income — Berta v. Berta and Drygala v. Pauli referenced — Income imputed at $100,000<br />Family — Child support — Income components — Consideration of non-recurring funds and prospective earnings — Should non-recurring funds and prospective consulting income be considered on this motion? — Sale proceeds, FIFA ticket profits, summer engagement and AI consulting disclosed — Purpose of Guidelines ensuring child benefits from available means — Marinangeli cited — Interim Table support ordered at $932 per month
• 2026-07-06 R. v. Barone, 2026 ONCJ 405 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation material — Child‑centred approach applied under Friesen and Pike — Denunciation and deterrence prioritised pursuant to s. 718.01 — Availability of conditional sentence assessed under Proulx and Pike — Electronic monitoring and home confinement ordered — Ancillary prohibitions, SOIRA and DNA orders imposed — Conditional sentence imposed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Conditional sentence — Possession of CSAEM, s. 163.1(4) — Is a conditional sentence proportionate and available for this offence? — Community safety satisfied and proportionality met under Proulx and Pike — Lengthy and restrictive community‑based sentence denounces and deters — Electronic monitoring and house arrest ordered — Conditional sentence imposed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Aggravating and mitigating factors — Application of Pike and Friesen — Sharing activity treated as aggravating, real children depicted, collection size and duration considered — First offender, guilty plea, remorse, low risk, strong supports, medical circumstances — Cumulative mitigation renders community sentence fit and proportionate — Rehabilitation prospects favourable — Conditional sentence confirmed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Ancillary orders — Criminal Code, ss. 161, 490.013(2)(b), 487.051 — What ancillary orders are appropriate on sentencing for possession of CSAEM? — Prohibitions under s. 161 imposed for fixed terms and for life in employment contexts — SOIRA order for 20 years under s. 490.013(2)(b) — DNA order under s. 487.051 — Orders made
• 2026-07-03 R. v. H.K. United Trucks Limited, 2026 ONCJ 401 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Environment — Environmental offences — Waste management and disposal — Environmental Protection Act, ss. 27(1), 40 — Transporting waste without approval and depositing waste at unapproved site — Whether convictions and sentence under EPA should be set aside — Regulated nature of waste transportation emphasised — Environmental risks from moving material from site with visible industrial waste — Appeal dismissed<br />Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Reasonableness of verdict — Whether circumstantial case permitted only reasonable inference of guilt — Villaroman standard applied to competing-source theory — Observations of waste loaded at source and strikingly similar waste at destination — Other identified sources excluded on record — Verdict reasonable, convictions upheld<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Regulatory offences — Due diligence defence — Strict liability established upon prohibited act — Whether mistaken belief or all reasonable steps proven on balance of probabilities — Blind reliance on customer’s verbal assurances found objectively unreasonable — Claimed industry practice clearly deficient — Due diligence defence rejected<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Multiple convictions — Kienapple principle — Whether convictions under ss. 27(1) and 40 arise from same delict — Offences share factual nexus but are legally distinct — Transporting waste without approval complete before deposit offence — Each contains distinguishing element not required by the other — No stay entered<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Fitness of sentence — Whether $50,000 fine demonstrably unfit — Deference per Lacasse — Aggravating factors including recklessness and financial motivation — Corporate offender subject to higher penalties under EPA s. 187 — Coke Rule explained regarding prior and subsequent offences — Sentence upheld
• 2026-07-03 R. v. Dobbin, 2026 ONCJ 402 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Non‑consensual distribution of an intimate image — Whether jail is appropriate or a conditional sentence order suffices — Proportionality under s. 718.1 and restraint for youthful first offenders — Denunciation and general deterrence addressed through house arrest with electronic monitoring — R. v. Hamilton considered — Conditional sentence order imposed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Conditional sentences — Criminal Code, s. 742.1 — Do the statutory criteria for a conditional sentence order permit a community‑based disposition? — Community safety not endangered and consistency with ss. 718 to 718.2 satisfied — Denunciation and deterrence achievable by CSO terms — R. v. Kutsukake referred to — CSO criteria satisfied<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sex offender registration — SOIRA — Should a SOIRA order issue following a conviction for distribution of an intimate image under s. 152.1? — Nature of offence, offender’s youth, remorse and circumstances considered — Denunciation and deterrence met without registration — No need for additional measures — SOIRA order refused