Find below recently published Ottawa decisions, available for free through CanLII.org.
Family Matters
Nouh v. ElAbbasy (2025 ONSC 3154)
The Court granted urgent, without-notice parenting orders to prevent the removal of children from Ontario, citing family violence, coercive control, and flight risk. Video parenting time was also ordered to support the children’s relationship with their mother, emphasizing their best interests and stability.
Associate Justice I. Kamal
D.C. v. B.A.T. (2025 ONSC 3107)
In a family law dispute, the Court apportioned costs based on divided success, withdrawal of claims, and party conduct. The Respondent was awarded $10,000 in costs, reflecting her success on parenting issues and the Applicant’s entitlement to costs for withdrawn financial claims.
Justice I. Carter
Wang v. He (2025 ONSC 3072)
A motion for urgent parenting orders was dismissed as the Applicant failed to demonstrate immediate harm, urgency, or hardship. The Court emphasized adherence to procedural rules and criticized counsel’s conduct, including inappropriate use of a “without notice” motion and excessive materials, resulting in costs awarded against the Applicant.
Associate Justice I. Kamal
Rowley v. Bowick (2025 ONSC 2990)
In a family law costs decision, the Court awarded $15,000 to the successful party, balancing their success, reasonable offers to settle, and the opposing party’s financial hardship. Both parties acted reasonably, and the award reflected proportionality and the importance of the issues.
Justice K. Jensen
Civil Matters
Duffy v. McDaniel (2025 ONSC 3227)
The Court approved the settlement, solicitor-client fees, and structured payment schedule for a catastrophically injured plaintiff, ensuring the arrangement was reasonable and in his best interests.
Justice S. Corthorn
1343633 Ontario Inc. et al. v. Michael Coghlan et al. (2025 ONSC 3180)
The Court ordered two related actions to be heard together, finding common questions of fact and law arising from an Estate Freeze transaction. Consolidation was deemed necessary to avoid inconsistent findings, reduce costs, and ensure judicial efficiency, despite objections regarding potential delays and procedural concerns.
Associate Justice K. Perron
1750738 Ontario Inc. c. 6888631 Canada Inc. et al (2025 ONCS 3145)
La Cour conclut que l’arbitre a erré en annulant une ordonnance judiciaire, mais valide sa reconnaissance d’une condition implicite liée à une licence obligatoire pour l’exécution d’un contrat verbal. L’interprétation contractuelle et les clauses implicites relèvent de questions mixtes de fait et de droit, limitant les droits d’appel.
Juge O. Rees
Laxton v. Laxton (2025 ONSC 3138)
The Court found an elderly woman incapable of managing property and appointed her husband and son as joint guardians. It waived the requirement to post security due to prohibitive costs and set a timeline for passing accounts, prioritizing her care and family trust.
Justice S. Corthorn
Hansa Mortgage Investment Corporation v. Irving et. al (2025 ONSC 2972)
The Court granted a mortgagee leave to issue a writ of possession and ordered the discharge of a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL). The CPL was deemed to lack practical utility due to the property’s negative equity and the mortgagee’s superior claim, balancing equities and pragmatic considerations.
Associate Justice I. Kamal
Criminal Matters
R. v. Franchina (2025 ONSC 2951)
The Court allowed an appeal to correct an error in sentencing, removing a weapons prohibition order improperly imposed under the Criminal Code when the Crown proceeded summarily and an absolute discharge was granted.
Justice A. London-Weinstein
R. v. Wood (2025 ONCJ 285)
The Court sentenced an art dealer to two years less a day for stealing and forging a culturally significant Churchill portrait. The decision emphasized the historical and cultural value of the artwork, the aggravating factors of forgery and trafficking, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.
Justice R. Wadden
Divisional Court Decisions
Browne v. Picart et al. (2025 ONSC 3045)
The Court ordered the appellant to post $10,000 as security for costs, finding the appeal frivolous and vexatious with limited financial transparency. A motion for an injunction against alleged harassment was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. Costs of $3,000 were awarded to the respondents.
Justice A. Kaufman
Court of Appeal Decisions of Local Interest
Mikhail v. Mikhail (2025 ONCA 403)
costs — writing — abandoned — inclusive — disbursements
Justices J. Copeland, P. Monahan, and M. Rahman