Alexander McLeod

The applicant mother brought a motion to transfer the parties' two children to a new school closer to her temporary residence.

The parties shared joint custody and equal residency.

The court found that the mother had not established a permanent residence and that the proposed school change was inextricably tied to mobility issues.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, holding that it was premature to change the children's school before the mother established a permanent home, and that maintaining the current arrangement would minimize disruption and maximize contact with both parents.

The estate of a deceased elderly woman alleged that the defendant, who was a non‑contributing joint bank account holder and caregiver, breached fiduciary duties by transferring funds from the joint account to herself as compensation.

The court found that although the defendant occupied a fiduciary role in managing the account and effectively acted as a trustee de son tort, the payments were authorized pursuant to a family agreement for caregiving services.

Evidence showed the deceased approved the arrangement while capable and that the attorney for property had knowledge of the payments.

The court held the compensation was reasonable in light of extensive caregiving and financial management services.

The estate’s claim for repayment and damages was dismissed.

A homeowner sued a contractor for a refund of the contract price after a lakeside dock constructed under a five‑year workmanship and materials warranty became uneven after two winters.

The contractor argued the damage was caused by extraordinary ice and weather conditions rather than defective construction and counterclaimed for defamation based on threatening emails and alleged reputational harm.

The court found the precise physical cause of the uplift uncertain but concluded the dock’s premature failure, absent a satisfactory exculpatory explanation, entitled the plaintiff to damages.

However, the plaintiff failed to mitigate losses by investigating repair options, and the evidence established the dock was repairable at modest cost.

The court awarded damages limited to the estimated repair cost and dismissed the defendant’s defamation counterclaim for lack of proof of publication or actual loss.