Adriana Doyle

This case involves cross-motions in a family law dispute concerning the recognition of a Turkish divorce decree, parenting arrangements (decision-making and time), child support, partition and sale of jointly owned property, a restraining order, determination of the date of separation, and financial disclosure sanctions.

The court declined to grant summary judgment on the recognition of the Turkish divorce and the date of separation, finding genuine issues requiring a trial.

Interim orders were made, granting the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence in Rockland, ordering the children to attend Rockland Public School, increasing the father's parenting time, maintaining the existing child support, and ordering the sale of the jointly owned property.

The requests for a restraining order and a fine for non-disclosure were dismissed, with the father given an extension to file financial statements.

The plaintiff, Debbie Lee Wilson, claimed damages for injuries sustained from a slip and fall in a mall parking lot, fracturing her right elbow.

She sued the property manager and snow removal contractor for negligence under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The court found the defendants negligent for failing to apply salt in a timely manner, creating a dangerous icy surface.

The plaintiff was found 25% contributorily negligent for not taking special precautions despite being aware of winter conditions.

Damages were awarded for general damages, past loss of income, future housekeeping/lawn maintenance, and future care costs, reduced by the plaintiff's contributory negligence.

The applicant sought various forms of relief, including damages for family violence, child support, special expenses, advance costs for tort claims, and a restraining order against the primary respondent, who did not participate in the proceedings.

The court granted orders consolidating claims, adjusting child support obligations, ordering advance costs, compelling non-party document production, and issuing a restraining order.

Costs were awarded against the non-participating respondent.

The applicant brought a motion for extensive financial disclosure from the respondents and non-parties in the context of a bifurcated trial.

Phase 1 of the trial was ordered to solely determine the validity of the marriage contracts.

The applicant argued the disclosure was necessary to assess the value of the estate for the fairness consideration under the Levan test and to respond to the defence of laches.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the exact value of the estate was not necessary for Phase 1 and that ordering the disclosure would undermine the purpose of the bifurcation order.

This is a costs endorsement following a 9-day family law trial.

Both parties sought costs, with the applicant (wife) seeking partial indemnity and the respondent (husband) seeking full indemnity.

The court found that there was divided success on the issues and that both parties contributed to the costs and delays of the trial, including issues with financial disclosure and engagement with Requests to Admit.

Neither party's offers to settle engaged Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

Consequently, the court ordered no costs, with each party bearing their own.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of breaching a probation order and criminal harassment against a family he had previously been convicted of harassing.

The Crown alleged the accused was seen near the complainants' residence and following one of the complainants in a vehicle.

The court found the eyewitness identification evidence provided by the complainants to be unreliable due to lack of familiarity, poor lighting, brief observation times, and the complainants' heightened anxiety and assumption that the perpetrator was the accused.

The Crown failed to prove the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts, and a one-year peace bond was entered on consent.

The appellant real estate broker appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision suspending his registration for three months.

The suspension was based on false statements in registration applications and workplace misconduct.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness because the notice of proposal did not include the workplace misconduct allegations.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the LAT improperly relied on unparticularized evidence of workplace misconduct to support its finding that the appellant would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

Following a successful motion by the respondent to strike portions of the applicant's affidavit in an estate litigation matter, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of over $56,000, arguing the applicant made unfounded allegations of fraud and conspiracy, and requested costs be payable personally by the applicant's counsel under Rule 57.07.

The court declined to award full or substantial indemnity costs and refused to order costs against counsel personally, finding the conduct did not rise to the requisite egregious level.

Costs were fixed at $7,500 payable by the applicant to the respondent.

The parties were married in 1987 and separated in 2015.

During the marriage, while living in Quebec, they signed two notarial instruments (in 1988 and 1990) adopting a 'separate as to property' regime and opting out of the Quebec family patrimony regime.

The applicant wife sought an equalization of net family property under the Ontario Family Law Act, arguing the Quebec instruments did not oust the Ontario equalization regime or, alternatively, should be set aside under s. 56(4) of the Act.

The court held that the Quebec instruments did not contain clear and cogent language addressing the relative economic positions of the parties upon marriage breakdown, and therefore did not oust the equalization provisions of the Act.

Alternatively, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the instruments under s. 56(4) because the respondent husband failed to disclose significant assets (his multi-million dollar inheritances) and the wife did not understand the nature and consequences of the contracts when she signed them.

The wife was permitted to proceed with her equalization claim.

The applicant, a former teacher, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision staying her human rights application as an abuse of process.

The applicant had previously pursued grievances through her union, which involved extensive arbitration hearings where unfavourable medical evidence was presented, before the union withdrew the grievances.

The Divisional Court found that the HRTO Vice-Chair reasonably concluded the applicant was engaged in forum shopping and that allowing the HRTO application to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

In a family law proceeding, the parties disputed whether the applicant, who suffers from mild dementia and requires a litigation guardian, had the testimonial competence to testify at trial.

The court reviewed the conflicting expert evidence from geriatric specialists regarding her capacity to observe, recollect, and communicate.

Applying section 18(2) of the Ontario Evidence Act, the court determined it was necessary to conduct an in-person examination of the applicant to assess her testimonial capacity before ruling on the issue.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy on the basis that the landlord required the unit for her own personal use.

The tenant argued the landlord acted in bad faith, the eviction date was unfair, and he was denied procedural fairness when refused an adjournment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law.

The Board correctly applied the test for good faith, which requires a genuine intention to occupy rather than a reasonable proposal, and the tenant was afforded procedural fairness as he had adequate notice and opportunity to present his case.

The parties separated after a five-year marriage.

Following a nine-day trial, the court determined the equalization of net family property, including the valuation of the husband's foreign properties in Morocco, and ordered the equalization payment to be made via a pension rollover.

The court also ordered the husband to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, proportionate shares of section 7 expenses, and retroactive and ongoing spousal support on a compensatory and needs basis.

The husband's claim for occupation rent was dismissed.

The accused, a former police officer, was charged with sexual assault against a complainant he met while investigating a domestic violence incident involving her.

The Crown alleged the accused pushed the complainant onto her bed and rubbed against her without consent, or alternatively, that any consent was vitiated by his abuse of authority.

The accused testified that the touching was consensual and occurred on a couch.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework and found the accused's evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt.

However, due to inconsistencies and frailties in the complainant's evidence, the court was left with a reasonable doubt as to whether she subjectively did not consent.

The court also found no convincing evidence that consent was vitiated by an abuse of trust or authority.

The accused was acquitted.

Following a 29-year marriage, the parties sought a determination on equalization, section 7 expenses for their adult daughter's post-secondary education, and spousal support.

The court determined the equalization payment, finding that certain joint bank accounts containing the respondent's inheritances were excluded property due to a resulting trust.

The court ordered both parties to equally share the daughter's outstanding OSAP loan.

The respondent's claim for retroactive spousal support was dismissed, but ongoing spousal support of $600 per month was awarded based on both compensatory and needs-based grounds.

The applicants sought an order under the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act to retain land on which their garage encroached, believing it was their own.

The respondents sought summary judgment dismissing the application, arguing adverse possession was not established and the Act did not apply.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, confirmed no adverse possession, and applied s. 37(1) of the CLPA, granting the applicants the right to retain the encroached land upon payment of fair compensation to the respondents.

The defendant subcontractor moved to declare the plaintiff's construction lien expired and to discharge the lien.

At the time the plaintiff preserved and perfected its lien, the plaintiff corporation had been dissolved for failure to pay a fee, though it was later revived.

The court held that because the corporation was dissolved at the relevant time, it was not a legal entity entitled to preserve or perfect a lien.

The court found it had no equitable discretion to validate the lien retroactively, and even if it did, it would not exercise it in these circumstances.

The motion was granted, the lien discharged, and the security ordered returned.

The Integrity Commissioner appealed a decision imposing a reprimand on a city councillor who breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by participating in a council meeting regarding a debt owed to a non-profit corporation of which he was a director.

The Commissioner argued the only appropriate penalty was removal from office.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that recent amendments to the Act broadened judicial discretion regarding penalties, and the application judge made no error in principle in imposing a reprimand given the mitigating factors.

Following a long-term marriage, the court determined spousal support, equalization, retroactive support, and the treatment of post-separation increases in the payor's income.

The court held the recipient spouse had no resulting trust interest in a residence owned by her father, so sale proceeds from that property were excluded from her net family property and an equalization payment of $189,470.96 was ordered by pension rollover with tax gross-up.

On support, the court found entitlement was primarily non-compensatory, but with a small compensatory component arising from indirect contributions to the payor's career development, and held that some sharing of post-separation income increases was justified.

Ongoing support was fixed at $3,800 per month until pension rollover, retroactive adjustment from 2017 was ordered using a formula based on all pension income plus 35% of other income, and some double recovery from pension income was permitted due to ongoing hardship and ability to pay.

The court issued a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Both parties sought costs.

The defendants claimed over $250,000 for eight different court steps, arguing the self-represented plaintiffs caused unnecessary legal expenses.

The plaintiffs sought $30,000 for successfully defending the motion.

The court awarded the defendants $34,000 for various interlocutory steps, finding the plaintiffs' litigation strategy was disproportionate and caused unnecessary expenses.

The court declined to award costs to the plaintiffs for the s. 137.1 motion, applying the statutory presumption against costs for successful responding parties due to their conduct.