u/WhiteNoise----

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2026/2026onsc2729/2026onsc2729.html

One of those cases you can't help but shake your head at.

The Plaintiff's theory of the case was that the ball stadium had lighting issues prior to the injury, and those lighting issues caused him to not see the ball that was thrown to him. He sought damages against the municipality for failing to maintain the lighting.

The court found the waiver the Plaintiff signed to be invalid, but that the Town had acted reasonably in operating the stadium, and that in any event, the Plaintiff willingly assumed the risk of getting hit.

Who says common sense is dead?

https://coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/item/24182/index.do

Good riddance.

In multi-party litigation, plaintiffs often try to settle out with some of the defendants. In Handley Estate, the court created strict rules requiring plaintiffs to immediately disclose those settlements to other defendants, failing which the entire claim could be dismissed as an abuse of process.

In some cases, the failure to disclose those settlements within weeks was held to result in the plaintiff's entire claim being dismissed.

The ONCA has now ruled that Handley was wrongly decided and created far too strict consequences for the failure to disclose these settlement agreements.

[164]   For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the rule articulated in Handley Estate should not be sustained. That rule’s stipulation that non-disclosure of partial settlement agreements that change the adversarial landscape of the litigation constitutes, in every case, an abuse of process, even where prejudice was not shown, coupled with its prescription of a mandatory and exceptionless stay of proceedings as the sole remedy, is inconsistent with the fundamental principles that govern the doctrine of abuse of process. The doctrine has always required a contextual and discretionary inquiry, directed to whether the impugned conduct gives rise to unfairness, prejudice, oppression, or otherwise undermines the integrity of the administration of justice, and, if so, what remedy is appropriate and just in the circumstances.

[165]   We, therefore, overrule Handley Estate. Going forward, failures to disclose partial settlement agreements are to be assessed under ordinary abuse of process principles. Such failures might, depending on the circumstances, constitute an abuse of process. However, that determination is not to be made categorically, but rather by reference to the particular facts of the case, including the nature of the non-disclosure, its timing, its effect on the litigation, and any resulting prejudice or harm to parties or to the administration of justice.

[166]   Where an abuse of process is established, the remedy must be fashioned in accordance with the principle of proportionality. A stay of proceedings remains available, but only in the clearest of cases, where the prejudice to a party or to the integrity of the judicial process is such that no lesser remedy would suffice. 

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2026/2026scc16/2026scc16.html

Haven't read it in full yet but the SCC appears to have cast the net quite wide as to what can constitute coercive control -- expressly including "litigation abuse" after the relationship has ended.

For those with the stomach to read about this house of horrors, I wish you the best of luck.

I can only pray that some kind of meaningful change is sparked by this case.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2026/2026onsc2646/2026onsc2646.html

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2026/2026onsc658/2026onsc658.html

A highly educated aerospace engineer went to a river and found a 9 year old boy. He offered the boy a toy, and the boy ended up in the man's yellow Camaro.

The father of the boy was fortuitously able to track the Camaro down, and retrieve his son, who was eating ice cream in the vehicle. Somehow, the man was not beaten half to death.

The man was charged with kidnapping. He pleaded guilty, but took the position on sentencing that everything was one large cultural misunderstanding. Many aspects of the case are quite bizarre, and actually support the man's story that what he thought he was doing was culturally appropriate.

Was this more nefarious, or was the man truly under an impression that this was acceptable behaviour?

https://coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/item/24130/index.do

Very interesting case which will likely be headed to the SCC.

Police intended to (and had grounds to) arrest LG, but accidentally arrested LG's brother, TG.

The search following TG's arrest revealed drugs and guns. TG was charged with offences relating to this search. TG sought to have the evidence excluded on the basis that the police never even intended to arrest him, and therefore had no grounds to arrest him.

The trial judge admitted the evidence and convicted TG.

Conviction overturned. Majority says the police needed to do more to ensure they were arresting the right person. (Pomerance's dissent is first, who would have admitted the evidence notwithstanding the charter breach.)

Quite an incredible and scathing endorsement from Justice Pazaratz.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2026/2026onsc2314/2026onsc2314.html

[1]               What the hell is going on?

...

[6]               So today, I was asked to simply make an order pursuant to the terms everyone agreed to, relating to A.O.

[7]               But having read the Society’s affidavit, I was really quite shocked by what the Society had agreed to.  And what it wanted me to agree to.

[8]               Paragraph 69(f) of the Society worker’s affidavit states:

Previously, (the mother) has made significant allegations about (the father). While (the mother’s)  reports about (the father) changed, they were nonetheless serious, including that that (the father) watched pornography and masturbated in A.O.’s presence, used drugs, and that he raped A.O. multiple times. There was a joint investigation with the Crimes Against Children’s Unit at Hamilton Police, but the investigation closed as there was insufficient evidence to proceed. (The mother) stated she would leave A.O. in (the father’s) care despite having had concerns he was using drugs and sexually harming her child.

 (Emphasis added)

 [9]               Wait.  The mother says the father “raped the child multiple times”.  And I’m supposed to trust the father?  I’m supposed to just go along with minutes of settlement which somehow gloss over this incredibly serious allegation?

[10]           The Society says the mother admitted she would “leave A.O. in (the father’s) care despite having had concerns he was using drugs and sexually harming her child.” And I’m supposed to trust the mother?

[11]           To add to my consternation, in paragraph 54 the society worker says that the mother indicated A.O. does not wish to have access to the father.

[12]           I asked the Society’s lawyer how the agency could expect me to make the requested order, granting the father unsupervised overnight access in light of such serious allegations of sexual abuse toward this young female child.

[13]           Ms. Persaud noted that there was a joint investigation by the Society and the police but the investigation was closed because there was “insufficient evidence to proceed”.

[14]           Insufficient evidence to proceed?   Maybe that prevented a criminal charge.  But this is family court.  This vulnerable child still needs to be protected.

...

[29]           I would urge the Society to seriously review its handling of this case.  And to improve the quality of the evidence it provides to the court.