Alex Ferguson

The decision addresses a motion by iHealthOx Inc. and Terri Storey to set aside a default judgment obtained by Welch LLP for unpaid professional fees.

The court found that the defendants were validly served and that iHealthOx Inc. did not have an arguable defence on the merits, but that Ms. Storey had an arguable defence regarding her personal liability.

The default judgment was set aside as against Ms. Storey, conditional on payment of costs, but not as against iHealthOx Inc.

The father brought a motion to change a 2011 final order regarding child support and section 7 expenses for their 21-year-old child.

The court found a material change in circumstances occurred when the child moved in with the father in 2018.

The court imputed an annual income of $75,000 to the mother, finding her intentionally unemployed.

A budget of $28,000 per year was set for the child's post-secondary education, to be shared proportionately.

The mother's claims for retroactive support and section 7 expenses were largely dismissed.

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 applicant, a former romantic partner of the respondent, sought temporary access to the respondent's child, Luna, with whom the applicant had a caregiving relationship for approximately 10 months.

The respondent opposed access.

The court dismissed the motion for temporary access, finding that the applicant did not meet the onus to prove that access was in the child's best interest, particularly given the significant period of non-contact and the lack of a detailed access proposal.

The court emphasized that a non-parent does not have a presumptive right to access and that the custodial parent's right to make decisions should be respected in the absence of evidence of inability to act in the child's best interests.

A property dispute concerned a narrow strip of land between neighbouring residential properties.

The applicants sought declarations and a vesting order establishing title to the strip by adverse possession.

The court examined decades of evidence showing that the applicants and their predecessors openly used and maintained the disputed strip as part of their driveway and yard, believing a hedge marked the boundary line.

Applying the test for adverse possession and the provisions of the Limitations Act, the court found that more than ten years of continuous, open, notorious, and exclusive possession had accrued prior to the application of the Land Titles system.

The court also found the possession reflected a good faith boundary mistake shared by neighbouring owners.

Title of the respondents to the disputed land was extinguished and vested in the applicants.