Decisions of the Court

• 2025-06-20 Shi v. Chen, 2025 ONSC 3699 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Contracts — Breach of agreement — Summary judgment — Loan agreement involving currency exchange between Canada and China — Defendant defaulted on repayment obligations — No genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the defendant's default — Rule 20.04(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure applied to grant summary judgment<br />Obligations — Damages — Quantification of damages — Plaintiff transferred 11,924,700 Renminbi to the defendant — Exchange rate applied to calculate damages in Canadian dollars — Plaintiff entitled to $2,308,309 in compensatory damages — Prejudgment interest awarded under the Courts of Justice Act<br />Contracts — Punitive damages — Denial of punitive damages — Defendant's conduct not malicious, oppressive, or high-handed — No independent actionable wrong established — Punitive damages not necessary to achieve denunciation, deterrence, or retribution<br />Contracts — Remedies — Tracing order and constructive trust — Plaintiff sought tracing order and constructive trust over defendant's bank accounts in China — Funds not traceable or held in trust — Tracing order and constructive trust denied<br />Civil procedure — Costs — Substantial indemnity costs — Defendant's conduct during litigation deemed reprehensible — Costs awarded on a substantial indemnity basis — Plaintiff awarded $89,586.26 in costs
• 2025-06-20 R v. Robertson, 2025 ONSC 3683 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Breath sample demand — Immediacy requirement — Officer issued demand for a breath sample under s. 320.27 of the Criminal Code — Was the demand made "immediately" after reasonable grounds were formed? — Officer delayed demand to ensure appellant’s health and safety following a serious accident — Demand found to be prompt and lawful — Flexible interpretation of "immediacy" upheld in light of constitutional context — R. v. Breault, 2023 SCC 9 applied<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Section 10(b) — Right to counsel — Informational and implementational duties — Appellant informed of right to counsel twice within ten minutes — Did the officer comply with s. 10(b) obligations? — Appellant declined to contact counsel and was released on a promise to appear — No violation of s. 10(b) rights found<br />Rights and freedoms — Breath sample demand — Unusual circumstances — Delay in demand justified by officer’s concern for appellant’s health and safety — Was the delay excused by "unusual circumstances"? — Supreme Court guidelines in R. v. Breault applied — Officer acted reasonably in ensuring safety before issuing demand — Delay found to be justified under the circumstances<br />Constitution — Charter of Rights — Section 10(b) — Right to counsel — Implementation of rights in context of roadside breath sample demand — Whether officer’s actions infringed constitutional rights — Appellant did not request counsel and was promptly released — No breach of constitutional rights found
• 2025-06-19 J.M.M. v. C.R.M., 2025 ONSC 3631 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Costs in family law proceedings — Entitlement to costs — Applicant awarded costs of $150,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST — Respondent’s unreasonable litigation conduct and Applicant’s success on all issues considered — Rule 24(3) presumption of costs entitlement for successful party applied — Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, r. 24(3)<br />Family — Costs related to support — Enforcement by Family Responsibility Office — $30,000.00 of costs award deemed to arise in relation to support — Enforceable under Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996 — Limited garnishment of Respondent’s income to $200.00 per month — Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, s. 1(1)(g)<br />Civil procedure — Reasonableness and proportionality of costs — Determination of reasonable full recovery amount — Applicant’s legal fees, disbursements, and HST reviewed — Adjustments made for conferences and motions where costs were not warranted — Costs reduced to reflect proportionality and fairness — Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, r. 24(14)<br />Family — Mental health and financial circumstances — Impact on costs award — Respondent’s mental health challenges and limited financial means considered — Costs reduced to $150,000.00 to balance fairness and Respondent’s ability to pay — Payment plan structured to minimize financial hardship — Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, r. 24(14)(b)
• 2025-06-19 R. v. D.H., 2025 ONSC 3654 (CanLII)
  Key Words:
• 2025-06-18 R v. Au, 2025 ONSC 3559 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Sentencing — Police officer convicted of assault — Off-duty officer used excessive force to take down unarmed individual — Whether custodial sentence necessary — Sentence must balance denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation — Suspended sentence with probation imposed — Governing principles for sentencing police officers, including breach of public trust and heightened denunciation — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 266, 718, 718.1, 718.2<br />Professional responsibility — Police misconduct — Off-duty officer convicted of assault — Breach of public trust — Impact of excessive force on community trust in police — Racial context and erosion of trust in Black communities considered — Sentence must reflect heightened denunciation and deterrence for police officers — Governing principles for sentencing officers in cases involving racialized victims or communities<br />Criminal procedure — Weapons prohibition — Section 110 of the Criminal Code — Whether offender should be prohibited from possessing firearms or other weapons — Offender’s poor judgment and failure to de-escalate situation cited as public safety concerns — Three-year weapons prohibition imposed without employment exemption — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 110<br />Criminal procedure — DNA order — Section 487.051(3) of the Criminal Code — Whether DNA order should be imposed for secondary designated offence — DNA order deemed minimally invasive and necessary to promote public safety — Order granted despite low risk of reoffending — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 487.051(3)

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 2025-06-19 Ricketts v. Veerisingnam, 2025 ONSC 841 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Lease — Residential tenancy — Ineffective assistance of counsel — Tenant alleged that paralegal conceded the issue of good faith eviction contrary to instructions — Can ineffective assistance of counsel be raised as a ground of appeal in residential tenancy disputes? — Ineffective assistance recognized in exceptional circumstances involving vulnerable tenants or significant public interest — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, s. 48(1)<br />Evidence — Procedural fairness — Miscarriage of justice — Tenant alleged paralegal failed to contest landlord's good faith intentions and improperly limited hearing to relief from eviction — Did the paralegal's actions result in a miscarriage of justice? — Miscarriage of justice found where legal representative acted contrary to instructions, undermining fairness and reliability of the decision<br />Civil procedure — Remedies — Rehearing versus reconsideration — Tenant sought judicial review and appeal of LTB decision — Should the matter be remitted to the LTB for reconsideration or ordered for rehearing? — Rehearing ordered where ineffective assistance rendered original hearing unfair and prejudicial<br />Administrative law — Standard of review — Procedural fairness and questions of law — Appeal from LTB decision — What is the appropriate standard of review? — Correctness standard applied to procedural fairness and legal questions; reasonableness standard applied to factual and discretionary decisions
• 2025-06-18 Ramsay et al. v. Shafiq, 2025 ONSC 3599 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Lease — Eviction — Notice of Hearing — Tenants argued they did not receive the Notice of Hearing and were unable to participate in the eviction hearing — Landlord and Tenant Board found that the tenants were deemed to have received the notice under statutory provisions — Did the Board err in law by dismissing the tenants' argument? — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, ss. 188-191, 209(2)<br />Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Notice of Hearing — Tenants alleged procedural unfairness due to lack of notice — Board relied on statutory presumption of service and factual findings regarding notice delivery — Standard of review for procedural fairness is correctness — Did the Board err in law in its procedural fairness analysis? — Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33<br />Civil procedure — Jurisdiction — Eviction order — Landlord failed to disclose prior N12 Notice of Termination in application — Tenants argued this omission invalidated the application and deprived the Board of jurisdiction — Court held that the issue was already decided in Miller Estate v. Arguelles, 2025 ONSC 112 — Did the Board err in law by issuing the eviction order? — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, s. 210(1)
• 2025-06-17 Cardoso v. LECA, 2025 ONSC 3450 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Access to information — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) — Public interest override — Reporter requested access to police misconduct data, including names and badge numbers — IPC upheld non-disclosure of names and badge numbers under section 21(1) of FIPPA — Did the IPC err in its application of the public interest override under section 23? — Framework for balancing public interest in disclosure against privacy exemptions under FIPPA<br />Constitution — Charter of Rights — Freedom of expression — Section 2(b) of the Charter — IPC decision failed to consider Charter rights in access to information request — Reporter argued disclosure was necessary for meaningful public discussion on police oversight — Did the IPC err by failing to engage in a Doré/Loyola balancing analysis? — Charter rights must be explicitly considered in administrative decisions affecting freedom of expression<br />Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Notice of statutory grounds — IPC relied on section 21(3)(d) of FIPPA (employment history) without prior notice to the applicant — Reporter argued lack of notice violated procedural fairness — Was the process leading to the IPC decision procedurally unfair? — Procedural fairness requires notice of all statutory grounds relied upon in administrative decisions<br />Administrative law — Reasonableness of decision — IPC decision upheld non-disclosure of police officer names and badge numbers — Decision found public interest in disclosure insufficient under section 23 of FIPPA — Was the IPC decision unreasonable in its interpretation of public interest and privacy exemptions? — Reasonableness review requires balancing statutory mandates with public interest considerations
• 2025-06-17 Davidson v. T.E.S. Contracting Services Inc., 2025 ONSC 3537 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Labour and employment — Class actions — Certification — Misclassification of workers — Proposed class action alleging misclassification of independent contractors as employees under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 — Whether the motion judge erred in finding insufficient commonality among proposed common issues — Test for certification of common issues in misclassification cases — Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41, s. 74.3<br />Labour and employment — Fiduciary duties — Class actions — Whether the defendant owed fiduciary duties to class members — Plaintiff alleged breach of fiduciary duty arising from misclassification of workers — Whether fiduciary duty claim could be certified as a common issue — Relationship between fiduciary duty and employment status<br />Civil procedure — Costs — Class actions — Certification motion — Costs award of $333,114.05 against plaintiff following unsuccessful certification motion — Whether the motion judge erred in awarding costs — Consideration of public interest, access to justice, and novel legal issues in costs decisions — Standard for granting leave to appeal costs decisions<br />Civil procedure — Jurisdiction — Class actions — Appeal of certification decision — Whether the Divisional Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal — Distinction between final and interlocutory orders in class action certification decisions — Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6
• 2025-06-17 Shabaj v. Signet Group Inc., 2025 ONSC 3560 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Lease — Residential tenancy — Rent abatement — Stay of eviction — Procedural fairness — Tenant sought rent abatement and stay of eviction due to personal injury claims against landlord — LTB failed to adjudicate on merits due to procedural errors by tenant’s counsel — Should the LTB’s decision be quashed and referred to the SCJ? — Residential Tenancies Act governs procedural and substantive rights in tenancy disputes<br />Property — Eviction orders — Stay of enforcement — Tenant faced eviction due to rent arrears — Tenant argued inability to pay rent due to injuries caused by landlord’s negligence — Should the eviction order be stayed pending adjudication of personal injury claims? — Eviction stayed to prevent irreparable harm and ensure fair adjudication<br />Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Errors by counsel — Tenant’s counsel failed to present evidence and follow LTB procedures — Did procedural errors result in a denial of justice warranting intervention by the Divisional Court? — Procedural fairness requires adjudication on merits, not default<br />Civil procedure — Consolidation of claims — Bifurcation of personal injury and tenancy issues — Landlord preferred bifurcation to maintain eviction order — Should related claims be consolidated in the SCJ? — Consolidation directed to ensure efficient and fair resolution of interconnected issues