Find below recently published Ottawa decisions, available for free through CanLII.org.
Family Matters
Ehdego v. Puni (2025 ONSC 3962)
In a family law dispute, the Court denied a mother’s request to relocate with her child to British Columbia, citing insufficient evidence of compelling circumstances and prioritizing the child’s best interests. The Court ordered a shared parenting schedule and imputed income for child support calculations.
Justice V. Naik
Civil Matters
Buffa v. Giacomelli (2025 ONSC 4024)
The Court found that a mother’s inter vivos gifts to her daughter were valid, as the daughter rebutted the presumption of resulting trust by proving the mother’s clear intention to gift. The son’s claims of undue influence and unconscionable procurement were dismissed due to insufficient evidence.
Justice M. Smith
Nagy et al. v. Guay (2025 ONSC 3935)
The Court dismissed a claim alleging a neighbour’s curb wall caused a water-related nuisance, finding no substantial or unreasonable interference.
Justice A. Doyle
Locke v. Ottawa Police Services et al. (2025 ONSC 3745)
The Court dismissed a motion to strike a claim alleging police misfeasance in public office, finding the claim not statute-barred under the Limitations Act and sufficiently distinct from a prior dismissed action. The plaintiff’s allegations of deliberate misconduct and harm met the threshold for a reasonable cause of action.
Justice A. Doyle
Bell v. Bisaillon (2025 ONSC 3965)
The Court found the seller waived a solicitor review condition and acted in bad faith by refusing to close a real estate transaction. Specific performance was granted as the property was deemed unique, and damages were inadequate.
Justice R. Ryan Bell
Zuccarini v. Zuccarini (2025 ONSC 3925)
In a dispute involving an estate and corporate defendants, the Court ordered all defendants to retain separate legal representation. The Court declined to impose a deadline for retaining counsel, emphasizing that the terms of the order must reflect the original ruling without adding unenforceable provisions.
Justice S. Corthorn
Debela v. Ives (2025 ONSC 3992)
A personal injury action was reinstated after being administratively dismissed for delay. The Court found the delays were attributable to counsel, not the plaintiff, and no prejudice to the defendant was demonstrated. The Court emphasized the preference for resolving cases on their merits over procedural dismissals.
Associate Justice K. Perron
Hennebury v. Makita Canada Inc. (2025 ONSC 3850)
The Court granted summary judgment, finding a product liability claim barred by the 15-year ultimate limitation period under the Limitations Act. The alleged defect in a power tool did not constitute a continuing act or omission, and no exceptions to the limitation period applied.
Justice A. London-Weinstein
Tella v. A.B. (2025 ONSC 3835)
A defamation lawsuit was dismissed under anti-SLAPP legislation as most statements related to public interest and were protected by absolute privilege. The Court allowed anonymity for the defendant but declined to seal the court record. The plaintiff may pursue a new action for limited statements not engaging public interest.
Justice I. Carter
Pinchin v. Ikemoto (2025 ONSC 3575)
In a property easement dispute, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to admit a late expert report, finding no reasonable explanation for the delay and potential prejudice to the defendant. The Court emphasized the importance of timely compliance with procedural rules for expert evidence.
Justice G. Mew
Criminal Matters
R. v. J.N. (2025 ONSC 4056)
The Court ruled that limited evidence of the complainant’s prior online sexual activity is admissible to explain the genesis of alleged abuse and establish the accused’s mens rea. The evidence’s probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect, with restrictions imposed to protect the complainant’s dignity and privacy.
Justice A. London-Weinstein
R. v. J.N. (2025 ONSC 4041)
The Court excluded evidence of prior discreditable conduct, finding its prejudicial impact outweighed its probative value, particularly in a judge-alone trial where the necessity of such evidence is reduced.
Justice A. London-Weinstein
R. v. J.N. (2025 ONSC 4040)
The Court ruled that a prior consistent statement by the complainant to her mother was inadmissible, as it was unnecessary for narrative purposes and the defence no longer pursued issues of delayed reporting. The decision may be revisited if the defence raises the timing of the complaint at trial.
Justice A. London-Weinstein
R. v. DeBold (2025 ONSC 3801)
The Court allowed the Crown’s appeal, finding the trial judge erred in assessing the accused’s post-driving alcohol consumption defense under s. 320.14(5) of the Criminal Code. The matter was remitted for a new trial to properly evaluate the objective reasonableness of the accused’s belief regarding providing a breath sample.
Justice J. Parfett
Divisional Court Decisions of Local Interest or from Ottawa Judges
Beaudoin v. City of Ottawa (2025 ONSC 3870)
A self-represented applicant’s motion to add co-applicants to a judicial review was denied. The court found the proposed co-applicants lacked standing and their inclusion would complicate proceedings. However, the court ordered the respondent to provide its response earlier than previously scheduled to avoid further delays.
Justice A. London-Weinstein
Akman v. Sonnet Insurance Company (2025 ONSC 3924)
The Court held that when an appeal is allowed, the lower court’s costs order is set aside, even if the costs award was not independently appealable. The successful appellant was entitled to costs of the appeal and the lower court proceeding, with no costs awarded for the subsequent appearance.
Justice S. Corthorn
Grovum v. Kouznetsov (2025 ONSC 3899)
The Court upheld a judge’s authority to issue substantive orders at a case conference, finding it aligned with procedural rules and efficiency. The appellants’ liability for tax penalties was reduced due to a calculation error, but their procedural fairness claim was dismissed. Appeal allowed in part.
Justices N. Backhouse, S. O’Brien, and A. Kaufman
Court of Appeal Decisions of Local Interest
R. v. Saha (2025 ONCA 488)
The Court upheld the conviction and sentence, finding the complainant did not subjectively consent to specific acts despite ambiguous language. The trial judge properly assessed subjective consent, the appellant’s mens rea, and sentencing factors, dismissing both conviction and sentence appeals.
Justices M. Tulloch, J. Dawe, and R. Pomerance