Purchase This Domain

Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Appellate review — Bank sought summary judgment against guarantor of corporate loan — Motion judge granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring trial — Did the motion judge err in determining that this was a proper case for summary judgment? — Test for summary judgment under Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, rr. 20.01, 20.04(1) — Appellate deference to discretionary decisions of motion judgesContracts — Personal guarantees — Duty of lender — Appellant argued Bank had a duty to ensure she understood the consequences of signing a personal guarantee — Motion judge found no special relationship or duty of care owed by the Bank — Does a lender owe a duty to explain loan instruments to a guarantor? — Familial relationships and undue influence — Test for manifestly disadvantageous transactionsContracts — Non est factum defence — Appellant claimed she did not understand the nature of the personal guarantee due to limited English proficiency and lack of legal advice — Motion judge found appellant was a sophisticated party with sufficient knowledge to understand the guarantee — Did the motion judge err in rejecting the non est factum defence? — Test for non est factum and its application to guarantorsEvidence — Procedural fairness — Self-represented litigants — Appellant alleged procedural unfairness due to refusal to allow amended pleadings and reliance on her own discovery transcript — Motion judge declined to consider amended statement of defence and excluded appellant’s discovery transcript under r. 39.04(2) — Did the motion judge err in denying procedural fairness? — Rules governing amendments to pleadings and admissibility of discovery transcripts

Family — Equalization of property — Joint family venture (JFV) — Parties disputed whether their property division should be governed by JFV principles or standard equalization under the Family Law Act — Did the trial judge err in disregarding the parties’ concession of a JFV? — Equalization mechanisms under the Family Law Act deemed sufficient to adjudicate the dispute without JFV analysisIndigenous peoples — Property valuation — On-reserve property — Valuation of assets located on-reserve, including discounts for lack of marketability and the “reserve factor” — Did the trial judge err in applying discounts and using fair market value? — Trial judge’s reliance on expert evidence accounting for unique features of on-reserve property upheldFamily — Spousal support — Compensatory spousal support — Trial judge declined to award spousal support, finding neither party seriously pursued the issue at trial — Did the trial judge err in declining to award compensatory spousal support? — No basis to interfere with trial judge’s conclusion that spousal support was unwarranted

Constitution — Charter of Rights — Section 10(b) breaches — Right to counsel — Trial judge found three breaches of the appellant’s s. 10(b) Charter rights, including delay in informing of the right to counsel and questioning before counsel was accessed — Did the trial judge err in balancing the Grant factors to admit evidence? — Framework from R. v. Grant applied to determine admissibility under s. 24(2) of the CharterCriminal procedure — Evidence admissibility — Charter breaches — Appellant challenged the trial judge’s decision to admit evidence obtained after s. 10(b) breaches — Whether the trial judge erred in concluding the handgun and drugs were lawfully obtained despite Charter violations — Deferential appellate review of Grant factor analysisEvidence — Charter breaches — Impact on protected interests — Appellant argued trial judge underemphasized the seriousness of police conduct and its impact on Charter rights — Whether the trial judge properly weighed the seriousness of breaches and their effect on the appellant’s rights — Grant framework applied to assess admissibility of real evidenceRights and freedoms — Sentencing — State misconduct — Appellant sought increased credit for state misconduct due to s. 10(b) Charter breaches — Whether the trial judge erred in assessing the seriousness of the breaches for sentencing purposes — No reversible error found in trial judge’s assessment of Charter-infringing conduct