Find below recently published Ottawa decisions, available for free through CanLII.org.
Family Matters
Abdul-Ridha v. Kandil (2025 ONSC 6228)
In a family law costs decision, the Court awarded $32,000 plus HST to the successful party, adjusting for the opposing party’s unreasonable conduct and reducing excessive hourly rates claimed by Toronto-based counsel to align with Ottawa standards. Claims for family violence damages were dismissed as procedurally inappropriate.
Justice M. Labrosse
Civil Matters
Clark v. Cen-Ta Real Estate Ltd et al (2025 ONSC 6225)
The Court granted leave for a derivative action against directors for alleged fiduciary breaches but reserved costs to the trial judge, citing overlapping claims with an existing oppression action and fairness considerations.
Justice A. Doyle
Caivan (Fox Run) Limited v. Gangwal et al (2025 ONSC 6163)
In a contract dispute over a failed property purchase, the Court awarded $10,000 in costs to the successful plaintiff but reduced the amount due to the plaintiff’s unreasonable conduct in misinterpreting a contractual amendment, which contributed to the litigation.
Justice A. Doyle
Hastings Condominium Corporation No. 4 v. Boyce (2025 ONSC 6159)
The Court ruled that a condominium owner breached statutory and governing obligations by refusing yard maintenance access, obstructing common element repairs, and engaging in harassing conduct. Declaratory and injunctive relief was granted, including access orders and prohibitions on further harassment, with compensatory relief adjourned for further submissions.
Justice S. Corthorn
Pascuet v. Sky Service (2025 ONSC 6143)
A wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed on summary judgment as it was filed after the two-year limitation period expired. The Court found the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the termination and the appropriateness of legal action on the termination date, rejecting arguments of discoverability or novel circumstances.
Associate Justice I. Kamal
Litvin et al v. Mackenzie Financial Corporation et al (2025 ONSC 6138)
The Court certified a national class action for a data breach involving personal information, finding sufficient common issues and procedural suitability, while deferring decisions on overlapping provincial proceedings and specific statutory remedies.
Justice C. MacLeod
Criminal Matters
R. v. Jones (2025 ONSC 6158)
The Court dismissed an appeal challenging impaired driving convictions, finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in an ambulance and no Charter breaches. The officer’s actions were deemed reasonable, prioritizing medical care over immediate arrest, and the evidence was properly admitted. The convictions were upheld.
Justice K. McVey
R. v. Meredith (2025 ONSC 6054)
The Court acquitted the accused of sexual assault and criminal harassment charges, finding the complainant’s evidence unreliable and contradicted, while the accused’s testimony raised reasonable doubt under the W.D. framework.
Justice N. Somji
R. v. D.A. (2025 ONSC 6141)
The Court convicted the Accused of multiple sexual offences against a child, finding the complainant credible and rejecting the Accused’s explanations. The decision emphasized the importance of assessing child witnesses’ evidence with caution and considering forensic evidence, which corroborated the complainant’s account.
Justice O. Rees
Court of Appeal Decisions of Local Interest
Equitable Bank c. Bitchoka (2025 ONCA 759)
La Cour rejette la demande de sursis à l’exécution d’une ordonnance d’expulsion, concluant qu’aucune question sérieuse n’est soulevée en appel et qu’aucun préjudice irréparable n’est démontré. L’appelant a admis son défaut de paiement et n’a pas présenté de preuve suffisante pour justifier un sursis.
La juge J. Thorburn
Devonport v. Devonport (2025 ONCA 753)
The Court upheld the application of the anti-lapse provision under the Succession Law Reform Act, confirming the son’s wife inherited the property. The appellant’s arguments regarding contrary intention in the will and occupation rent were dismissed. The appeal was denied, with costs awarded to the respondent.
Justices J. Copeland, D. Wilson, and R. Pomerance