Adriana Doyle

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant general contractor for unpaid work on a construction project.

The general contractor's contract with the owner had been terminated due to delays, and the general contractor alleged the subcontractor contributed to those delays.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring trial because granting partial summary judgment risked inconsistent findings with the main action between the owner and the general contractor, where the subcontractor's role in the delay was a live issue.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle collision.

While he was receiving medical attention, a police officer searched his vehicle's glove box without authorization to find insurance documents, discovering cocaine.

The applicant was subsequently arrested, and searches incident to arrest revealed prohibited firearms and marijuana.

The applicant brought a Charter application to exclude the evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the glove box search violated section 8 of the Charter and that the applicant's section 10(a) and (b) rights were breached during his detention.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the section 8 breach was serious and deliberate, outweighing society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

The application was granted and the evidence was excluded.

The applicant executor sought directions regarding the interpretation of the deceased's will.

The will granted a life interest in a residential property to the deceased's wife, with the remainder to his two sons.

One of the sons died intestate before the life tenant.

The court applied the golden rule of will interpretation and the presumption of early vesting, concluding that the property vested in the sons at the date of the testator's death, not at the termination of the life interest.

Following a family law trial where the applicant mother was granted sole custody and permitted to move to Montreal, the court determined the issue of costs.

The mother sought up to $170,284.90, while the father argued for a reduction due to divided success and the mother's conduct.

The court found the mother was successful on the major issues of custody and mobility, but noted she was unsuccessful on significant financial claims.

Applying the Family Law Rules and considering the divided success, the parties' behavior, and the nature of mobility cases, the court ordered the father to pay costs of $40,000.

Following a trial where the maternal grandmother was awarded sole custody of the child, the respondents sought costs.

The applicant father argued each party should bear their own costs due to his limited means and the grandmother's alleged bad faith.

The court found the father's behaviour unreasonable during the litigation, which lengthened the process, but did not find bad faith.

Considering the father's ability to pay and the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court ordered the father to pay costs of $15,000 to the grandmother and $3,000 to the mother, payable in monthly instalments.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing death after striking and killing a pedestrian who was crossing the street following a hockey game.

The court found that while the accused's speed constituted the actus reus of dangerous driving given the heavy pedestrian traffic, the Crown failed to prove the requisite mens rea.

The court concluded that poor lighting, dark clothing, and the distraction of a stopped vehicle's headlights meant the accused's failure to see the pedestrians was a momentary lapse or error in judgment, not a marked departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent driver.

The charge was dismissed.

The Applicant and Respondent brought cross-motions concerning various issues arising from their cohabitation.

The Respondent sought to strike the Applicant's claim due to his undischarged bankrupt status or, alternatively, security for costs.

The Applicant sought security for costs, disclosure of property documents, recovery of property, a timetable, and orders regarding communication with his son and the Respondent's address.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion to strike, finding the Trustee in Bankruptcy had authorized the Applicant to pursue his constructive trust claim.

Both parties' requests for security for costs were dismissed, as the Applicant's claim was not deemed a waste of time or nuisance and the Respondent did not meet the criteria.

The Applicant was granted disclosure of property sale documents, while motions regarding communication with his son and the Respondent's address were dismissed due to lack of evidence.

A timetable for the proceedings was established, and costs were reserved to the trial judge.

The applicant father brought a motion to enforce a final order for summer parenting time in British Columbia, which the respondent mother denied due to alleged safety concerns stemming from an incident the previous summer.

The mother brought a cross-motion for supervised access in Ottawa and anger management for the father.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) closed its file without taking a position.

The court found the final order remained in effect and the mother could not unilaterally deny access.

The court was not prepared to restrict access based on uncorroborated hearsay and dismissed the mother's motion, ordering the father's parenting time to proceed as per the final order.

In a high-conflict family law trial, the mother sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the parties' two young children to Montreal to take over her family's business.

The father sought joint custody and opposed the move.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding that the parties' poor communication and high conflict precluded joint custody, and permitted the move to Montreal as being in the children's best interests.

The father was granted a graduated access schedule that increased his parenting time to alternate weekends with overnights.

The court also ordered ongoing child support and a $10,000 lump sum for retroactive spousal support, but dismissed the mother's claims for retroactive section 7 expenses and a $60,000 business contribution due to insufficient evidence.

The court rendered a costs endorsement following a six-day trial in a family law matter.

The Applicant sought substantial costs, arguing she was largely successful on major issues such as imputed income and support.

The Respondent argued for each party to bear their own costs, claiming neither party's offer to settle was more favourable.

The court found the Applicant to be the more successful party on the major issues, particularly regarding imputed income and retroactive support, and awarded the Applicant $15,000 in costs, considering the complexity of issues, parties' behaviour, and expert fees.

The applicant wife sought retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support from the respondent husband, who operated a roofing business.

The court found the husband had historically operated on a cash basis and continued to under-report his income even after incorporating his business.

The court imputed income to the husband for the years 2014 to 2018, ordered $15,000 in retroactive support after crediting the husband for post-separation payments, and ordered ongoing child support of $1,500.23 per month and spousal support of $266 per month for seven years.

The court declined to order the husband to obtain new health or life insurance plans due to lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal denying him Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits.

The Tribunal had found that the appellant's impairments were not substantial at the time of the Director's decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by unreasonably disregarding a psychiatric report prepared after the Director's decision, which was admissible under s. 64(1) of O. Reg. 222/98.

The Tribunal also misapprehended medical imaging evidence regarding the appellant's physical condition and failed to consider medical opinions relating to his depression.

The matter was remitted to a new panel for a rehearing.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal denying him Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits.

The Tribunal had found that the appellant's impairments were not substantial at the time of the Director's decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by unreasonably disregarding a psychiatrist's report prepared after the Director's decision, which corroborated the appellant's physical and mental conditions.

The matter was remitted to a new panel of the Tribunal for a rehearing.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal affirming the termination of his ODSP benefits.

His benefits were terminated because he was absent from Ontario for more than 30 days after travelling to Mexico and missing his return flight due to illness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's decision and noting the appellant conceded he was ineligible for ODSP benefits during the relevant period because he was receiving OSAP.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring him to pay the tenant $675 for half a month's rent and a $2,000 administrative fine.

The Board found the landlord harassed the tenant, interfered with vital services, and acted in bad faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it raised no question of law and that the Board's findings and remedies were reasonable given the landlord's egregious conduct.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing the N5 notice of termination was void due to technical defects, specifically a missing bullet point and the inclusion of both repair and replacement costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded the notice was compliant with the Residential Tenancies Act because a reasonable person would understand their options to void the notice.

The applicant sought judicial review of a university discipline board decision that upheld a tribunal's finding of academic dishonesty regarding his doctoral thesis.

The tribunal had denied the applicant's request for an adjournment and proceeded with the hearing and penalty phase in his absence, ultimately recommending his degree be cancelled and he be expelled.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the tribunal's decisions to deny the adjournment and proceed immediately to penalty were procedurally fair and reasonable given the extensive history of delay, the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence, and the prior notice provided to the applicant.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision which held that the Board lacked jurisdiction to award damages for mental stress arising from workplace bullying and harassment.

The Board concluded that the injury would be compensable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, relying on previous tribunal decisions that found the acute mental stress limitation unconstitutional.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable and declining to consider new arguments regarding the employment function bar and the Occupational Health and Safety Act that were not raised before the Board.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission refusing to investigate an incident from 2006 where the applicant's brother was tasered by police.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission reasonably exercised its discretion not to proceed with an investigation given the passage of time and the extensive airing of the issues in prior court proceedings.

The court also found no error in the Commission's treatment of the evidence or any basis for allegations of an improper purpose.

The self-represented appellant appealed a final order enforcing a $35,000 settlement.

He argued the motion judge denied him procedural fairness by refusing to hear his arguments or receive his materials.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge had heard and considered the appellant's arguments.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's factual determination that a settlement was reached and was not unconscionable.