Alissa K. Mitchell

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' six-year-old child and restricted access for the respondent father, arguing that his acquired brain injury and past conduct posed safety risks.

The parties had previously executed a separation agreement providing for joint custody.

The Superior Court of Justice found no material change in circumstances to justify altering the joint custody arrangement, noting the mother had contrived conflict and unjustifiably restricted the father's access.

The court upheld joint custody, expanded the father's access schedule to alternating weekends and shared holidays, and ordered the father to repay funds he had misappropriated from the child's education account.

The defendants brought a motion seeking security for costs of a pending summary judgment motion, an order compelling the plaintiffs to deliver their affidavit of documents, and an adjournment of the summary judgment motion pending compliance.

The court held that Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes security for costs of an action but does not permit security for costs against a responding party on a summary judgment motion.

The request for security for costs was therefore dismissed without prejudice to bring a future motion for security for costs of the action.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to serve their affidavit of documents within 30 days and adjourned the summary judgment motion sine die.

Given the divided success on the motion, no costs were awarded.

The plaintiff accepted an offer to settle her wrongful dismissal and mental distress claim for $15,000 plus costs to be assessed or agreed.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The defendants argued no costs should be payable because the settlement amount fell within the Simplified Procedure threshold.

The court rejected this argument, noting the offer expressly provided for costs and the action was reasonably brought under the ordinary procedure given the complexity of the mental distress claims.

The court assessed the plaintiff's partial indemnity costs, reducing the claimed amount for unnecessary steps and disbursements, and awarded $9,716.50 in fees and $2,003.80 in disbursements, plus $500 for the costs of the assessment.

In a commercial dispute concerning banking facilities and losses allegedly arising from the termination of credit supporting commodity hedging, the defendant bank brought a motion seeking approval of a proposed electronic discovery plan and compelling compliance with Phase 2 documentary production.

The plaintiffs opposed the plan and argued that a prior court order already constituted the governing discovery plan.

The court held that the earlier timetable order did not satisfy the requirements of a discovery plan under Rule 29.1.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure because it lacked the necessary scope, production, and procedural details.

Applying the Sedona Canada Principles and principles of relevance and proportionality, the court determined the appropriate scope of Phase 2 electronic discovery and approved the bank’s proposed discovery plan with limited amendments.

The plaintiffs’ motion seeking related relief was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a costs order issued following settlement of family law proceedings involving custody, access, support, and property issues.

The trial judge had awarded costs to the other party after concluding that although success was divided, that party prevailed on the most complex and time‑consuming issues, particularly child and spousal support requiring extensive financial disclosure and expert accounting evidence.

The moving party argued the trial judge erred in fact‑finding, improperly awarded substantial indemnity costs, and created a reasonable apprehension of bias by releasing the decision before reply submissions were filed.

The court held that leave to appeal costs orders is granted only in obvious cases of error in principle or plainly wrong outcomes and found that the trial judge properly exercised discretion.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to substitute two identified individuals carrying on business as a security automation service in place of a fictitiously named defendant, “John Doe.” The motion arose from water damage allegedly caused by a defective sprinkler head following inspection of the sprinkler system by contractors retained by a security company.

The proposed defendants argued that the amendment would improperly add parties after expiry of the limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held the amendment constituted correction of a misnomer because the statement of claim clearly described the technicians involved in the inspection and the “litigation finger” was directed at them from the outset.

As no non‑compensable prejudice was shown and the action remained at an early stage, leave to amend was granted.

The applicant, a former member of the Labourers' Union, sought an order permitting him to make claims against the union's Benefit Trust or a return of his Dollar Bank Balance after being expelled for violating a dual union policy.

He also claimed the trustees breached their fiduciary duties.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant ceased to be a beneficiary upon expulsion, had no right to a distribution of the notional dollar bank account, and that the trustees did not breach their fiduciary duties by adopting or enforcing the dual union policy.