Find below recently published Ottawa decisions, available for free through CanLII.org.
Family Matters
Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. S.P. et al (2025 ONSC 2857)
In a child protection case, the Court placed custody with extended family members, prioritizing the child’s stability and best interests over competing plans from the parents and another relative. Supervised access was granted to the mother, while access for another relative was denied.
Justice M. Smith
Johnson v. Castellano (2025 ONSC 2844)
The Court struck a motion to change child support due to the Respondent’s persistent non-compliance with financial disclosure orders, despite multiple opportunities and warnings. The Court found the Respondent’s conduct willful and egregious, leaving no alternative remedy.
Justice B. Holowka
Huggins v. Hayhurst et al (2025 ONSC 2823)
The Court awarded full recovery costs of $89,651.81 to the successful party, citing the opposing party’s bad faith conduct, including non-compliance with court orders, fraudulent conveyances, and intimidation tactics.
Justice K. Jensen
Lemoine v. Mitchell (2025 ONSC 2599)
The Court increased interim spousal support to $3,000 monthly, declined retroactive support, granted additional parenting time, and allowed travel to the Akwesasne Reserve without the other parent’s consent, emphasizing the child’s best interests and cultural heritage.
Justice K. Jensen
Luque v. Garcia (2025 ONSC 2779)
The Court granted a father increased parenting time and joint decision-making responsibility, emphasizing the child’s best interests and stability. Allegations of family violence were noted but not substantiated, and the Court found no risk to the child in the father’s care. No costs were awarded.
Associate Justice I. Kamal
Abou-Assaly v. El-Saikali (2025 ONSC 2707)
The Court determined the date of separation, awarded sole decision-making for the youngest child to the mother, recognized her 50% beneficial interest in two properties via resulting trust, and ordered recalculations of child support arrears based on updated financial disclosures. The father’s claims and restraining order request were largely dismissed.
Justice M. Labrosse
Ebrahimi v. Ali Muradi (2025 ONSC 2718)
In an uncontested trial, the Court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility for her minor child, citing the father’s absence and history of family violence. The Court denied child support due to insufficient evidence of the father’s income and granted the mother a divorce.
Justice N. Somji
Hayford v. Hayford (2025 ONSC 2594)
In a motion regarding relocation and interim parenting, the Court denied a mother’s request to move with her children to New Brunswick for education, finding it contrary to the children’s best interests due to the father’s significant involvement in their daily lives. Joint decision-making and a revised parenting schedule were ordered.
Justice N. Somji
Civil Matters
In The Matter of the Consumer Proposal of Marion Patricia Amos (2025 ONSC 2948)
The Court revived a consumer proposal annulled due to health-related financial difficulties, citing completed payments, creditor notice, and good faith compliance.
Associate Justice I. Kamal
Faulkner Real Estate Ltd. v. Sakto Corporation (2025 ONSC 2940)
In a mould exposure case, the Court awarded the Defendants $225,000 in costs, finding their settlement offers reasonable and the Plaintiffs’ recovery of $4,000 nominal compared to their $6,000,000 claim. The Court exercised discretion to award costs on a partial indemnity basis throughout, reflecting the Defendants’ overwhelming success.
Justice R. Smith
Duffy v. McDaniel (2025 ONSC 2899)
The Court dismissed a motion to remove a litigation guardian, finding insufficient evidence to prove the plaintiff’s capacity to manage litigation independently under procedural rules. The evidence, including a capacity assessment, failed to address the specific legal test for disability in the context of the ongoing proceedings.
Justice S. Corthorn
Lachapelle v. St. Laurent Automotive Group Inc. (2025 ONSC 2879)
In a wrongful dismissal case under simplified procedure, the Court awarded maximum costs to the successful plaintiff, citing the defendant’s unreasonable settlement positions, refusal to negotiate, and hardline litigation approach, which necessitated a trial and increased legal expenses.
Justice P. Roger
Zuccarini v. Zuccarini (2025 ONSC 2871)
The Court addressed non-compliance with its order on written costs submissions, rejecting excessive filings and scheduling a two-hour oral hearing to resolve the issue. Further filings on costs require prior leave.
Justice S. Corthorn
Colley v. Hammoe (2025 ONSC 2852)
A motion for summary judgment in a failed real estate transaction was denied due to conflicting evidence on key issues, including who requested an extension of the closing date. The Court found that credibility determinations and additional evidence were required, necessitating a trial.
Justice P. Hurley
Warren v. Telus Health (Canada) Ltd. et al. (2025 ONSC 2765)
In a motion to amend a claim, the Court awarded $15,000 in costs to a defendant, reducing the requested amount due to the motion’s simplicity and excessive hourly rates charged by out-of-jurisdiction counsel. The decision emphasized fairness, proportionality, and geographic considerations in determining costs.
Justice M. Smith
LaFlamme v. Meikle and Vigliotti (2025 ONSC 2815)
The Court struck the defendants’ statement of defence due to repeated non-compliance with procedural rules and court orders, including failure to file required documents and notices, causing significant delays and prejudice to the plaintiffs. Compliance with procedural rules was deemed essential to ensure fairness and efficiency in litigation.
Associate Justice I. Kamal
Shapiro v. Shapiro (2025 ONSC 2781)
The Court found a surviving spouse to be a dependant under succession law, granting him ownership of the matrimonial home to address inadequate support in the deceased’s will, while preserving the majority of the estate for the primary beneficiary.
Justice K. Jensen
Spinney v. Fowlie (2025 ONSC 2632)
The Court set aside an arbitration award, finding the arbitrator’s mid-hearing switch to a written process violated fairness and equality under the Arbitration Act. The applicants were denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present their case orally, resulting in unequal treatment. The matter was remitted for a new hearing.
Justice C. Hackland
Criminal Matters
R. v. Mignac (2025 ONSC 2810)
The Court sentenced the Accused to a conditional sentence of two years less a day for aggravated assault and resisting arrest. Despite the violent nature of the offence, mitigating factors, including remorse, lack of a criminal record, and rehabilitation potential, justified a community-based sentence with strict conditions.
Justice A. Doyle
Divisional Court Decisions from Ottawa Judges
Kilian v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (2025 ONSC 2829)
A physician’s judicial review of her interim suspension was dismissed. The Court found the suspension reasonable due to her non-cooperation with a regulatory investigation, raising concerns about patient safety and governability. Challenges to the investigation’s lawfulness were deemed premature, as they must first be addressed in disciplinary proceedings.
Justices D.L. Corbett, M. Faieta, and O. Rees
Derenzis v. Gore Mutual Insurance Co. (2025 ONSC 2732)
The Court upheld the Tribunal’s decisions dismissing claims for accident benefits and its authority to order document destruction. It found no errors in the Tribunal’s application of deliberative secrecy, solicitor-client privilege, or procedural fairness, rejecting allegations of institutional bias and improper adjudicative processes. Appeal and judicial review were dismissed.
Justices D.L. Corbett, R. Lococo, and A. Doyle
Court of Appeal Decisions of Local Interest
R. v. Terwilligar (2025 ONCA 347)
The Court upheld convictions and an ancillary order under section 161 of the Criminal Code, ruling that such orders can apply even when the offence involves an undercover officer posing as a child, as the provision’s protective purpose extends to preventing risks to children.
Justices G. Trotter, L. Sossin, and M. Rahman