Décisions de la Cour

• 2025-05-08 Houston v Houston, 2025 ONSC 2824 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Costs — Self-represented litigants — Legal fees — Father sought reimbursement for legal fees paid to lawyers and for his own time spent on the case — Should self-represented litigants recover costs for their own time and legal fees? — Costs for self-represented litigants must reflect work ordinarily done by a lawyer and opportunity costs incurred — Reasonableness and proportionality are key considerations<br />Family — Costs — Reasonableness and proportionality — Factors considered — Costs awards in family law must balance indemnification, settlement encouragement, and sanctioning unreasonable conduct — Should costs reflect the financial means of the parties? — Costs must be fair and reasonable, considering the parties’ modest means and the mother’s primary responsibility for the child<br />Family — Costs — Non-compliance with court orders — Mother failed to provide disclosure and file an updated financial statement — Does non-compliance with court orders justify a costs award? — Non-compliance undermines resolution opportunities and may justify costs against the offending party<br />Civil procedure — Costs — Offers to settle — Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules — Father’s October 15, 2024 Offer to Settle included terms not identical to the trial outcome — Does the offer trigger full recovery costs? — Offers must be as good as or better than the trial outcome to trigger full recovery costs
• 2025-05-08 Warren v. Telus Health (Canada) Ltd. et al., 2025 ONSC 2765 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Costs — Discretion of the court — Defendant Telus Health sought costs of $21,476.79 after being successful on a motion — Plaintiff did not file costs submissions — Should the court award costs to the defendant, and if so, in what amount? — Costs awarded at $15,000, all-inclusive — Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 131(1)<br />Civil procedure — Costs — Reasonableness and proportionality — Factors governing costs awards — Simplicity of the motion and proportionality of time spent by counsel considered — Were the hourly rates and time spent by counsel reasonable? — Rates deemed excessive for the geographic location — Rule 57.01(1), Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194<br />Civil procedure — Costs — Geographic location of counsel — Defendant retained Toronto-based counsel for a motion in Ottawa — Should higher hourly rates from another jurisdiction be recoverable? — Court held that higher rates were unreasonable given the location of the proceeding — Fair and proportionate costs awarded
• 2025-05-07 R. v. Ibrahim, 2025 ONSC 2773 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Constitution — Charter of Rights — Arrest under warrant — Section 9 of the Charter — Lawfulness of arrest under a valid and subsisting warrant — Whether police required reasonable grounds to identify the accused as the subject of the warrant — Arrest deemed lawful under s. 9 of the Charter — Police not required to demonstrate reasonable grounds for identifying the correct person named in the warrant<br />Criminal procedure — Search incident to arrest — Section 8 of the Charter — Search of satchel carried by accused — Whether search violated s. 8 rights — Arrest deemed lawful, and search incidental to arrest found valid — No breach of s. 8 of the Charter<br />Criminal procedure — Right to counsel — Section 10(b) of the Charter — Delay in informing accused of right to counsel — Seven to ten-minute delay in advising accused of right to counsel — Whether delay constituted a breach of s. 10(b) — Breach of informational right found, but no breach of implementation right — No realistic opportunity to facilitate access to counsel at the roadside<br />Evidence — Exclusion of evidence — Section 24(2) of the Charter — Evidence obtained during search of satchel — Whether breach of s. 10(b) warrants exclusion of evidence — Application of R. v. Grant framework — Breach deemed minor, no causal connection to evidence obtained — Strong societal interest in adjudication on merits — Evidence admitted
• 2025-05-07 R. v. Martin and Doyle, 2025 ONSC 2783 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Delay in proceedings — Application of R. v. Jordan framework — Calculation of total delay, net delay, and remaining delay — Exceptional circumstances — Co-accused delays, changes in counsel, and systemic issues — COVID-19 pandemic and judicial resource shortages — Whether delay exceeding the presumptive ceiling is justified — Framework for assessing delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter<br />Rights and freedoms — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Section 11(b) — Right to be tried within a reasonable time — Applicants charged with serious offences, including robbery and firearm-related charges — Trial delay exceeding 52.6 months — Whether delay violated applicants’ Charter rights — Remedy of stay of proceedings under s. 24(2) of the Charter<br />Constitution — Charter remedies — Stay of proceedings — Unreasonable delay — Whether systemic issues, including judicial resource shortages and pandemic-related backlogs, justify delay — Crown’s obligation to ensure timely proceedings — Application of s. 24(2) of the Charter to remedy breaches of s. 11(b)<br />Evidence — Delay characterization — Co-accused delays — Changes in counsel — Exceptional circumstances under R. v. Jordan — Individualized versus communal attribution of delay — Whether delays caused by co-accused or systemic issues should be deducted from net delay — Governing principles for assessing defence-caused and Crown-caused delays
• 2025-05-07 Saraceno v. Moretto, 2025 ONSC 2791 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Costs — Divided success — Judicial discretion — Moving parties sought costs after partial success on a motion to strike under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Should costs be awarded despite divided success? — Costs awarded on a partial indemnity basis to reflect fairness, proportionality, and prejudice caused by late filings — Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 131; Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, Rule 57.01<br />Statutory interpretation — Costs — Judicial discretion — Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — What factors must courts consider when exercising discretion to award costs? — Factors include result achieved, complexity, importance, indemnity principle, and reasonable expectations — Overarching objective is fairness and proportionality — Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly Canada Inc., 2022 ONCA 587 applied<br />Professional responsibility — Counsel conduct — Procedural violations — Plaintiff’s counsel failed to meet deadlines, served late materials, and amended pleadings without consent or leave — Should counsel’s conduct impact the costs award? — Court found that late filings prejudiced the moving parties, requiring additional preparation and research — Costs awarded to reflect prejudice and to emphasize the importance of adhering to procedural rules

Cour divisionnaire - décisions récentes

• 2025-05-08 Feng v. Ontario Securities Commission, 2025 ONSC 2268 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Securities — Fraud — Mens rea — Tribunal found appellants knowingly misapplied investor funds raised for a specific project — Did the Tribunal err in applying the mens rea element of the fraud test? — Mens rea requires subjective knowledge of prohibited acts and awareness of potential deprivation — Securities Act, RSO 1990, c. S.5, s. 126.1(1)(b)<br />Securities — Fraud — Actus reus — Tribunal found appellants diverted funds raised for a real estate project to other purposes — Did the Tribunal err in finding the actus reus element of fraud was met? — Actus reus requires proof of deceit or falsehood causing deprivation — Securities Act, RSO 1990, c. S.5, s. 126.1(1)(b)<br />Evidence — Credibility — Limited English proficiency — Appellant argued limited English proficiency affected understanding of offering documents — Did the Tribunal err in not considering this factor? — Tribunal found appellant used interpreters and understood documents — Credibility findings attract deference on appeal<br />Evidence — Credibility — Standard of scrutiny — Appellant alleged Tribunal applied stricter scrutiny to their evidence compared to other witnesses — Did the Tribunal err in its credibility assessment? — Tribunal entitled to accept or reject evidence based on consistency and reliability — Credibility findings supported by the record<br />Securities — Sanctions — Disgorgement and penalties — Tribunal ordered disgorgement of $7,630,000 and administrative penalties of $500,000 each — Were the sanctions excessive or contrary to jurisprudence? — Sanctions proportionate to egregious fraud causing investor losses — Disgorgement reflects funds obtained through misrepresentation — Securities Act, RSO 1990, c. S.5
• 2025-05-07 Barnwell v. Law Society of Ontario, 2025 ONSC 1825 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Professional responsibility — Professional misconduct — Dishonesty — Trust accounts — Lawyer knowingly assisting in dishonest financial transactions — Constructive knowledge and red flags — Did the appellant knowingly assist in dishonest conduct or fail to recognize dishonesty in financial transactions? — Principles of professional misconduct and states of knowledge — Presumptive revocation and permission to resign as penalty<br />Evidence — Credibility — Expert evidence — Emails and prior transactions — Use of evidence to infer knowledge of dishonesty — Did the Hearing Panel err in its findings of fact and credibility regarding the appellant’s knowledge of dishonesty? — Standard of review for findings of fact and mixed fact and law<br />Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Recusal motion — Disclosure of PAC materials — Stay motion — Allegations of racial bias — Did the Hearing Panel err in its procedural rulings, including recusal, disclosure, and stay motions? — Test for reasonable apprehension of bias and disclosure of PAC materials<br />Constitution — Systemic racism — Mitigating factors — Anti-Black racism — Did the Hearing Panel err in its consideration of systemic racism as a mitigating factor in penalty analysis? — Connection between systemic racism and professional misconduct — Application of R. v. Morris principles in professional discipline<br />Statutory interpretation — Costs and compensation fund — Jurisdiction to order payment to the Compensation Fund — Interpretation of s. 35(1) of the Law Society Act — Did the Hearing Panel err in its interpretation of statutory provisions governing costs and compensation fund orders? — Broad discretion under s. 35(1), paragraph 21
• 2025-05-06 Humber River Health v. Teamsters Local Union No. 419, 2025 ONSC 2270 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Labour arbitration — Employer's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy — Arbitrator's decision quashed for unreasonably concluding that non-compliance with vaccination policy could never justify discipline — Did the Arbitrator fail to balance employer's health and safety obligations with employees' privacy rights? — Standard of review of reasonableness applied — Framework for judicial review of labour arbitration decisions<br />Health — Mandatory vaccination policies — Medical consent rights — Employer's termination of employees for non-compliance with mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy — Arbitrator found that discipline for non-compliance violated employees' medical consent rights — Can an employer enforce mandatory vaccination policies through disciplinary measures? — Balancing health and safety obligations with individual autonomy<br />Labour and employment — Termination for cause — Non-culpable grounds — Employees placed on unpaid leave for two weeks before termination for non-compliance with vaccination policy — Arbitrator found termination unjustified due to short duration of leave — Did the employer meet the burden of proving non-culpable grounds for termination? — Framework for assessing non-culpable termination in labour disputes<br />Constitution — Privacy and bodily autonomy — Balancing rights — Employer's mandatory vaccination policy challenged as infringing on employees' privacy and bodily autonomy — Arbitrator elevated medical consent rights above health and safety considerations — Did the Arbitrator err in failing to balance competing rights in the context of a pandemic? — Application of constitutional principles to workplace policies<br />Rights and freedoms — Arbitral precedent — Departure from established arbitral consensus — Arbitrator rejected prior decisions upholding discipline for non-compliance with mandatory vaccination policies — Did the Arbitrator unreasonably depart from arbitral precedent without justification? — Role of arbitral consensus in determining reasonableness of decisions
• 2025-05-06 Houlden v. Ramdoo, 2025 ONSC 2683 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Interim parenting orders — Status quo parenting arrangements — Best interests of the child — Whether the motion judge erred in failing to consider the status quo parenting schedule and the impact of changing it — Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), ss. 16(1), 16(3), 16(6) — Courts must exercise caution before altering established parenting arrangements on an interim basis<br />Family — Allegations of family violence — Coercive and controlling behaviour — Best interests of the child — Whether the motion judge erred in minimizing the significance of family violence allegations — Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), s. 16(3)(j) — Allegations of family violence must be assessed for their impact on parenting and cooperation<br />Evidence — Consideration of evidence — Parenting history and plans of care — Whether the motion judge erred in failing to consider all relevant evidence and allegations — Motion judge’s discretion in weighing evidence on interim motions — No requirement to address every piece of evidence in reasons<br />Family — Legal test for interim parenting orders — Adequacy of reasons — Whether the motion judge applied the wrong legal test or failed to provide adequate reasons — Maximum contact principle under Divorce Act, s. 16(6) — Reasons must permit effective appellate review and explain why the decision aligns with the child’s best interests<br />Family — AFCC-O Guide — Parenting schedules for young children — Whether the motion judge’s reliance on the AFCC-O Guide was inconsistent with the order made — Step-up parenting plans for children aged 18 months to 3 years — Guide supports gradual increases in parenting time to foster meaningful relationships
• 2025-05-06 Derenzis v. Gore Mutual Insurance Co., 2025 ONSC 2732 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Insurance — Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) — Independent Examinations (IEs) — Adequacy of IE notices — Tribunal found insurer’s IE notices complied with section 44 of the SABS — Applicant argued notices failed to meet consumer protection standards and were improperly cumulative — Did the Tribunal err in law in determining compliance with section 44? — Tribunal’s interpretation of section 44 upheld as reasonable and consistent with SABS consumer protection goals<br />Civil procedure — Reconsideration — Reply submissions — Tribunal struck portions of applicant’s reply submissions and evidence as improper reply — Applicant alleged institutional bias in reply submissions — Tribunal found bias allegations were not raised in initial submissions and constituted improper reply — Did the Tribunal breach procedural fairness? — Tribunal’s decision upheld as consistent with procedural fairness principles<br />Administrative law — Jurisdiction — Document destruction and non-dissemination orders — Tribunal ordered destruction of documents submitted as evidence of institutional bias — Applicant argued Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to issue such orders — Did the Tribunal exceed its jurisdiction? — Tribunal’s authority to control its own process under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act upheld<br />Administrative law — Privilege — Solicitor-client privilege — Tribunal ordered destruction of documents based on solicitor-client privilege — Documents included internal legal advice and procedural guidance from Tribunal counsel — Was the Tribunal’s decision reasonable? — Tribunal’s finding of privilege upheld as consistent with legal standards for solicitor-client communications<br />Administrative law — Deliberative secrecy — Tribunal ordered destruction of documents based on deliberative secrecy — Documents included internal consultations and administrative processes — Applicant argued deliberative secrecy did not apply to administrative matters — Was the Tribunal’s decision reasonable? — Tribunal’s decision upheld as consistent with principles of deliberative secrecy and adjudicative independence