A. Duncan Grace

The appellants appealed two interlocutory orders made by a motions judge.

The first order prohibited the parties from bringing any summary judgment motions, and the second required the appellants to produce for discovery anyone who filed an affidavit in support of a summary judgment motion.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeals, finding that both orders were made prematurely, without an evidentiary foundation, and in a procedurally unfair manner, as the parties had not requested such relief nor had the opportunity to make submissions on it.

The appellant, a registered social service worker, appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding her guilty of professional misconduct for surreptitiously recording a meeting and posting a hyperlink to confidential child protection records online.

She argued the Committee erred because she had been acquitted of criminal and provincial offences arising from the same conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee was not bound by the criminal acquittal due to different evidentiary standards and evidence.

The court upheld the Committee's findings that the appellant published identifying information contrary to the Child and Family Services Act and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

The penalty, including a six-month suspension, was affirmed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a temporary order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $2,350.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a February 17, 2021 decision regarding interim spousal support.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on three specific issues: whether the motion judge erred by ordering a net amount of spousal support contrary to the Income Tax Act, whether a material change in circumstances was required to vary an interim without prejudice order, and whether the motion judge relied on irrelevant considerations or made palpable and overriding errors in determining the temporary spousal support amount.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the moving party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a March 31, 2021 decision of Perell J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 inclusive to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a February 24, 2021 decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,800 to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the April 22, 2021 decision of G.A. MacPherson J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent fixed in the amount of $4,700.

The oversight council brought a motion to seal and redact the record of proceedings in an application for judicial review brought by the applicant.

The proposed redactions aimed to protect the identities of witnesses and deceased individuals.

The Divisional Court adjourned the motion, finding it would be contrary to the due administration of justice to proceed without giving notice to the potentially affected non-parties whose privacy interests were at stake.

The plaintiff contractor brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate owner and its principal for unpaid amounts on a commercial redevelopment project.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the debt, rejecting the defendants' claims of a fixed price and substandard work.

The court also found that the corporate owner breached the statutory trust provisions of the Construction Act by receiving funds after substantial performance was certified and failing to remit them to the plaintiff.

The individual principal was held personally liable for the breach of trust as he had effective control of the corporation and knew or ought to have known of the breach.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's jury notice in a motor vehicle accident action due to ongoing COVID-19 trial delays.

The court granted leave under Rule 48.04(1) to hear the motion, noting the substantial and unexpected change in circumstances caused by the pandemic.

Balancing the parties' interests and the severe backlog of civil and criminal jury trials in London, the court conditionally struck the jury notice, provided the matter is called for a judge-alone trial during the weeks of May 10 or 17, 2021.

If judicial resources are unavailable then, the jury notice will be maintained without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to renew the motion closer to the rescheduled trial date.

The defendants brought a pre-trial application challenging the sufficiency of the Information to Obtain a Search Warrant (ITO) for the Thorndale premises, arguing a breach of their s. 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

They sought to exclude the seized evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found that the ITO provided a sufficient evidentiary basis for the search warrant, concluding that the totality of circumstances, including frequent visits by the target's vehicle to the premises, its movements before and after suspected drug transactions, and counter-surveillance driving, established a credibly-based probability of evidence of a Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offence.

Therefore, no s. 8 Charter violation occurred.

Even if there had been a breach, the court determined that the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, as the police conduct was not serious, and the real and reliable evidence was of significant probative value, outweighing the impact on the accused's interests.

The application was dismissed.

This decision reviews previous custody and access orders following a finding of parental alienation by the respondent mother.

Despite the mother's continued uncooperative and alienating behavior, which has exacerbated the children's severe anxiety and resistance to contact with the applicant father, the court declined to transfer sole custody to the father.

The court maintained shared custody with primary residence with the mother, citing the children's fragile mental health, the ongoing pandemic, and the recent birth of a new child to the applicant and his partner.

The court ordered comprehensive, long-term therapeutic interventions for the children, the mother, and the father, with a designated case manager to oversee the process, emphasizing the paramountcy of the children's best interests.

This motion for directions addresses appeals of rejected claims in a class action settlement concerning cathode ray tubes (CRT) products.

The Claims Administrator had rejected claims, often using generic reasons, for insufficient proof of purchase.

The court clarified the interpretation of the Distribution Protocol, emphasizing that while declarations alone are insufficient"comparable verification" should be accepted.

The court also ruled that the Claims Administrator and Class Counsel do not have the authority to unilaterally amend the appeal process, which is under court control.

The appeals for certain class members were allowed and remitted for reconsideration, with directions for the Claims Administrator to provide fact-specific and instructive grounds for future decisions.

The offender pleaded guilty to second-degree murder after choking a sex worker to death, dismembering her body, and hiding her remains in his garage.

The Crown sought a 15-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 12 to 13 years.

The court considered the offender's diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder, his guilty plea, and the profound aggravating factors of the offence, including the vulnerability of the victim and the indignity to her remains.

The court sentenced the offender to mandatory life imprisonment with parole ineligibility set at 14 years.

The defendants were charged with various drug and firearms offences following the execution of a search warrant at a residence.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence to prove possession.

The court found the first defendant guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking based on drugs found near where she was sleeping, but not guilty regarding drugs found in a common kitchen area.

The second defendant, the principal occupant, was found guilty of possessing MDMA found in her bedroom, but not guilty of possessing the cocaine.

The careless storage of a firearm charge against the second defendant was dismissed due to an evidentiary gap regarding the standard of care.

The applicant, M.P.M., sought costs on a full recovery basis after being largely successful on parenting issues in a fiercely contested trial.

The respondent, A.L.M., opposed, arguing mixed success and seeking costs in her favour.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith regarding custody and access issues, justifying full recovery costs for those aspects.

However, the applicant's offer to settle did not meet the criteria for presumptive full recovery, and costs for earlier steps where no orders were made were disallowed.

The court also considered the respondent's impecuniosity but found it did not shield her from the consequences of her bad faith conduct.

A cost award of $70,000 for fees and $8,160.20 for disbursements plus HST was ordered in favour of the applicant.

The plaintiff, Blue Water Golf Course Inc., sued the defendants for the outstanding balance of a park model home purchase.

The defendants counterclaimed for damages, alleging breach of contract due to a defective furnace and resulting smoke and odour issues.

The court found that the defendants failed to establish a breach of contract on the part of the plaintiff or prove compensable damages.

Expert reports indicated no significant contamination or need for replacement of the furnace or ductwork, and many claimed damages were either reimbursed by their insurer or unrelated to the alleged defect.

The court granted judgment to the plaintiff for the full outstanding amount and dismissed the defendants' counterclaim.

The applicant father sought sole custody of the parties' two children, alleging severe parental alienation by the respondent mother following their separation.

The mother sought joint custody with primary residence and restricted access for the father.

The court found that the mother had engaged in a systematic and vindictive campaign of 'pure alienation' to destroy the children's relationship with their father, largely motivated by his new romantic relationship.

Despite finding that a reversal of custody would normally be warranted, the court ordered shared custody with a strict, progressive access schedule and mandatory therapy for the mother, citing the unprecedented uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also resolved outstanding financial issues including child support arrears and equalization.

This motion in a negligence action addressed the defendant's request for orders compelling the plaintiff to attend medical assessments, complete questionnaires, and sign consent forms, as well as to adjourn pre-trial and trial dates.

The plaintiff had refused to comply, relying on prior case law.

The court vacated the pre-trial and trial dates due to non-compliance with Rule 53.03(2.2) regarding expert report schedules.

The court ordered the plaintiff to sign consent forms and complete questionnaires, finding that section 105(5) of the Courts of Justice Act mandates answering relevant questions and that the court has inherent jurisdiction to control the discovery process, distinguishing prior cases that suggested a complete code.

The motion for the assessments themselves was adjourned as premature.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent damages for a roofing contract dispute.

The appellant argued the trial was procedurally unfair due to the deputy judge's frequent interventions and comments, which gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the deputy judge's well-intended activism became a reversible error by taking over the trial and improperly limiting the self-represented appellant's cross-examination.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered before a different deputy judge.