Akazaki

The defendant sought leave from the case management judge to bring a motion extending the time to serve a responding handwriting expert report, just weeks before trial.

The defendant had repeatedly missed deadlines and failed to retain an expert until after the original documents were allegedly lost.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, holding that any request to admit the late report or address spoliation must be brought de novo before the trial judge under Rule 53.08, as further case management intervention would risk treading on the trial judge's role.

The Minister of National Revenue moved to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) illegally imputed excessive taxable income and instituted wrongful collection measures, causing the principal plaintiff emotional distress and physical harm.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review tax assessments or federal administrative collection measures, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Court of Canada and the Federal Court.

Furthermore, the court held that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for intentional infliction of mental distress or misfeasance in public office.

The action was dismissed without leave to amend, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The defendant FundEX brought a motion for default judgment on its crossclaim against the co-defendants (the Reeves defendants) to recover indemnity for a $2.29 million settlement paid to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' action alleged that Reeves, a FundEX employee, defrauded them of their investments.

FundEX settled the main action and noted the Reeves defendants in default on the crossclaim.

The court dismissed the motion for default judgment because FundEX's crossclaim failed to plead the material facts necessary to claim indemnity for a settlement under section 2 of the Negligence Act.

The dismissal was without prejudice, granting FundEX leave to amend its crossclaim and bring a new motion.

Following a successful defamation trial where the self-represented plaintiff was awarded $850,000 in damages, the court assessed costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, noting both parties engaged in contesting peripheral issues.

The plaintiff was awarded $11,535.16 for transcripts and a $7,000 counsel fee for the trial, but claims for hotel stays, motion filing fees, and book binding were denied.

The court provisionally fixed costs at $18,535.16, allowing the plaintiff ten days to submit proper invoices for previously incurred legal fees.

The plaintiff, a former top-performing mortgage development manager, sued the defendant bank for defamation after he resigned during an investigation into fraudulent mortgage applications.

The bank reported him to the Canadian Bankers Association's SIFT database, falsely stating he had knowingly submitted fraudulent documents, which caused three prospective bank employers to withdraw job offers.

The court found the bank failed to prove the defence of justification, as there was no evidence the plaintiff knew of the fraud.

The defence of qualified privilege also failed because the bank lacked grounds to report him under the database's criteria, and its failure to retract the alert for seven years constituted malice.

The plaintiff was awarded $850,000 in total damages, including $200,000 in punitive damages.

The respondent father, sole owner of the matrimonial home, brought a motion under s. 23 of the Family Law Act to dispense with the applicant mother's consent to sell the property.

The mother had enjoyed de facto exclusive possession for seven years while the father paid all carrying costs, resulting in severe financial hardship for him.

The court harmonized the legal standards for selling a matrimonial home under the Family Law Act and the Partition Act, holding that the test for a solely owned home should be the same as for a jointly owned home: whether the party proposing the sale is acting maliciously, vexatiously, or oppressively.

Finding no such conduct by the father, the court granted the motion, dispensed with the mother's consent, and ordered exclusive possession to the father to prepare the home for sale.

At a case conference, the applicant mother sought temporary orders for sole decision-making, child support, and spousal support.

The respondent father did not file a brief or attend.

The court interpreted subrule 17(8) of the Family Law Rules, finding it confers jurisdiction on a case conference judge to grant substantive interim relief, provided notice is given.

The court granted the requested temporary orders, including $7,734 in monthly child support and $12,852 in monthly spousal support, placing the burden on the non-participating father to bring a motion to set the order aside.

The parties separated after a 10-year marriage.

The wife sought equalization of net family property, including the value of a multigenerational home registered to the husband and his father as tenants in common.

The court found the husband held his interest in trust for his siblings and himself upon his mother's death, meaning he had no beneficial interest to equalize at separation.

The court imputed income to both parties and ordered the husband to pay an equalization payment of $5,691, retroactive spousal support of $6,000, and ongoing spousal support of $462 per month for 10 years.

The wife was ordered to pay net child support of $17 per month.

The respondent husband brought a motion seeking $74,651 from the applicant wife's share of the proceeds from the sale of their matrimonial home, representing half of the post-separation carrying costs and child support.

The wife sought $72,900 in occupation rent as a set-off.

The court denied the wife's claim for occupation rent, noting her exclusion from the home was due to her own violent assault against the husband.

The court also denied the husband's claims for maintenance and child support credits, but awarded him $41,042.88, representing half of the mortgage payments made between separation and the sale of the home.

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the parties' three-year-old daughter to Ireland, arguing she needed to return to her home country to practice optometry and escape the respondent father's alleged coercive control.

The father opposed the relocation.

The court dismissed the relocation application, finding the mother's allegations of abuse lacked credibility and her economic rationale was flawed, as she could upgrade her degree in Canada.

Instead of permitting relocation, the court ordered the father to pay compensatory spousal support to fund the mother's professional requalification in Ontario, and ordered joint decision-making for the child.

The applicant and respondent, both self-represented, proceeded to trial on issues of net family property equalization and child support.

The applicant sought to impute an income of $104,000 to the respondent based on his start-up business, while the respondent argued for $40,000.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $55,000 per annum and ordered retroactive and ongoing child support.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay $33,233.90 in equalization, payable in quarterly instalments, and required annual disclosure of his corporation's financial statements.