Amber Rita Anne Herman

The applicant mother brought a motion for an interim parenting order after the respondent father withheld their six-year-old child following a visit.

The mother had previously obtained an ex parte order for the child's immediate return.

The court found compelling reasons to deviate from the pre-separation status quo due to the father's criminal charges, lack of suitable living arrangements, and poor judgment in withholding the child.

The court ordered that the child reside primarily with the mother and granted the father unsupervised daytime parenting time, with no overnight visits until he secures suitable accommodations.

The defendant R.B. & R. Cartage Inc. ("RB&R") brought a motion to dismiss the action for delay and for the plaintiffs' failure to comply with a 2018 court order.

The action arose from an oil spill in 2004.

The court found that the plaintiffs were not in breach of the order to set the action down for trial, as a trial record had already been filed.

While the plaintiffs failed to serve expert reports or bring a productions motion, these defaults did not warrant dismissal.

Applying the test for dismissal for delay under Rule 24.01, the court determined that the delay was not intentional and that the plaintiffs rebutted the presumption of prejudice, as relevant medical evidence was available and liability had been admitted.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the plaintiffs were directed to file an amended trial record to proceed to trial.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of fraud over $5,000 and one count of unauthorized use of a credit card.

Between March and August 2013, she defrauded her employer, a Shopper's Drug Mart, of $110,484.28 USD by facilitating fraudulent transactions using American Express credit cards while exploiting a security flaw in the company's system.

The employer suffered devastating consequences, losing his franchise agreement and substantial income.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 5½ months followed by three years of probation, taking into account the defendant's status as a permanent resident and the collateral immigration consequences of a sentence exceeding six months.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the defendant’s counterclaim relating to the enforceability of a commercial lease for premises in Mississauga.

The plaintiff argued the counterclaim was barred by the two-year limitation period.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s guidance on summary judgment in Hryniak v. Mauldin and subsequent appellate interpretation, the court held that granting partial summary judgment would risk inconsistent findings and would not resolve the litigation as a whole.

The court concluded that the matter should proceed to trial on a full record, particularly given potential discoverability issues affecting the limitations defence.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.