Annalisa S. Rasaiah

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a successful summary judgment motion by the defendant Williams-Litigation Lawyers.

The defendant sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis, while the plaintiffs proposed a lower partial indemnity amount.

The court awarded costs to Williams-Litigation Lawyers on a partial indemnity basis, considering factors such as the defendant's success, the significant damages claimed by the plaintiffs, the narrow but important legal issue, counsel's experience, and efforts to resolve the dispute without costs.

The court found the hours claimed by the defendant's counsel to be higher than what the plaintiffs ought to have expected given the non-complex nature of the proceedings.

The parties separated and the respondent father had been exercising supervised access to their two-year-old child.

Both parties brought motions for interim relief, with the hearing focused on whether the respondent's access should be changed to unsupervised and expanded to include overnights.

The court found that the respondent had demonstrated the ability to provide quality care for the child and that it was in the child's best interests to transition to unsupervised, expanded access, including overnight visits.

On a summary judgment motion arising from a franchise settlement dispute, the court held that a related corporation that received franchisor rights, powers, and a 50% trademark-holding share interest became subject to the guarantee obligation in minutes of settlement.

Applying the summary judgment framework, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial on the existence of the guarantee, the timing and character of the transfers, the related-entity status of the recipient corporation, or the asserted contractual defences.

The court interpreted 'transfer' broadly, including indirect and circuitous transfers implemented as part of a corporate plan to move assets within related entities.

Declaratory and payment relief was granted against the related corporation, including ongoing monthly payments, interest, and prior costs awards.

The respondent, Mr. LeBlanc, brought a motion to change a final order for spousal support, seeking a reduction from $1,500 to $400 per month, or zero, effective retroactively.

The original order by Koke J. imputed an income of $80,000-$90,000 to Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. LeBlanc argued a material change in circumstances due to financial hardship and the failure of a construction contract.

The applicant, Ms. Brothers, opposed the change, alleging Mr. LeBlanc was intentionally underemployed.

The court dismissed the motion to change, finding Mr. LeBlanc failed to establish a material change in circumstances that would warrant a reduction in imputed income.

The court also declined Ms. Brothers' requests for an order jailing Mr. LeBlanc for non-payment and an order against Cynthia Thomas, as these were not properly before the court.

The plaintiffs brought an action for defamation against a lawyer and the law firm with which she practiced in association.

The defendant law firm brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against it, arguing it was not vicariously liable for the lawyer's actions.

The court found that the lawyer was not a partner or employee of the firm, and the firm did not control her practice.

The firm's letterhead and marketing materials clearly indicated she was 'Practicing in Association not in Partnership'.

The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action against the law firm.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and supervised access for the respondent father in an uncontested trial.

The parties separated after a long relationship, and the respondent had not seen the children since separation.

The applicant raised concerns about the respondent's mental health, anger management, and abusive behaviour, noting he was subject to a recognizance prohibiting contact with her and their eldest child.

The court granted the applicant sole custody and ordered that any access by the respondent be supervised at a supervised access facility.

No child support was ordered as the respondent's income was below the threshold, but he was ordered to provide notice of any employment changes.

Child protection appeal from summary judgment orders making two children Crown wards and terminating access.

The appeal court found procedural unfairness only in relation to the access component, given the manner in which access had been argued and the wording of the orders, but rejected all challenges to Crown wardship, kin placement alternatives, and the refusal to direct a trial.

Applying the summary judgment framework and the statutory test under s. 59(2.1) of the Child and Family Services Act, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on access and that the evidence, including fresh evidence, did not establish a beneficial and meaningful relationship or show that access would not impair adoption.

The appeal was therefore allowed only to set aside the access paragraphs and replace them with an order dismissing the access claims and terminating prior access orders.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and equalization in an uncontested trial after the respondent father's answer was struck.

The court granted the mother sole custody and ordered that the father's access be supervised by the paternal grandparents due to his ongoing substance abuse issues.

The court imputed the father's income at $49,920 and ordered ongoing and retroactive child support.

The mother owed an equalization payment to the father, but the court allowed her to set off the father's child support arrears and outstanding costs awards against the equalization payment, resulting in the father owing the mother the remaining balance of child support arrears.

The plaintiff, a former bank manager, sued his financial advisors for negligence, misrepresentation, and undue influence after his commuted pension investments depleted faster than anticipated.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of his losses and the defendants' alleged role by 2010 at the latest, but did not commence his action until 2014.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the limitation period defence.

The respondent husband brought a motion to change a prior order that granted the applicant wife exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The husband argued the prior order was made without adequate notice and that he was unable to attend the hearing.

The court found that notice was adequate and, although the husband had a satisfactory reason for missing the hearing, declined to return exclusive possession to him.

The court found the husband lacked the financial stability to maintain the home and had a history of neglecting the property, making it necessary for the wife to retain possession to preserve the asset for sale.

The defendant owner of a motor vehicle brought a motion for default judgment on a crossclaim against the co-defendant driver following the settlement of the plaintiff's personal injury action.

The driver, who was operating the vehicle with a suspended license and caused the collision, failed to defend the crossclaim and was noted in default.

The court granted the motion, finding the settlement reasonable and ordering the driver to fully indemnify the owner for the $205,000 settlement amount plus costs.

The plaintiff, Karl Speers, brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant, Solar Logix Inc., after the defendant failed to deliver a statement of defence and was noted in default.

The claim was for breach of contract, seeking the return of a deposit due to the defendant's failure to perform contract terms within the required timeframe.

The court reviewed the motion record and, applying Rules 19.02, 19.05, and 19.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found that the deemed admissions of fact and adduced evidence entitled the plaintiff to judgment.

Damages were awarded for the deposit amount, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and costs.

This document contains reasons for a motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Algoma (Respondent) to admit fresh evidence on an appeal filed by the mother (Appellant), S.S., against a Crown Wardship order with no access.

The court adjourned the main appeal to allow for a full transcript of the original summary judgment motion.

The court granted the Respondent's motion to admit fresh evidence, specifically an affidavit, finding that it met the flexible test for fresh evidence in child protection cases, being relevant and potentially decisive to the children's best interests.

The defendant brought a motion for the production of notes and records from the plaintiff's counsel's file.

The plaintiff had previously moved to amend his statement of claim to withdraw an admission that he resigned, alleging his counsel made a drafting error and that he had actually been terminated.

The court found that by putting his communications with his counsel into issue to explain the alleged error, the plaintiff waived solicitor-client privilege over those specific communications.

The motion was granted in part, ordering the production of direct communications between the plaintiff and his counsel regarding how his employment ended.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs after being the more successful party at trial regarding property ownership and unjust enrichment claims.

The defendant argued for mixed results and that the plaintiff's offers were not more favourable.

The court found the plaintiff was the more successful party but noted mixed results and that the plaintiff's offers did not meet the Rule 49 threshold for substantial indemnity.

The court also considered the defendant's unreasonable conduct regarding the property listing.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis, with a reduction for mixed results, totaling $17,573.05, payable from the defendant's share of the property sale proceeds.

The plaintiff sought default judgment against the defendant for breach of a settlement agreement following employment termination.

The defendant failed to make all biweekly salary payments as agreed.

The plaintiff claimed fundamental breach, rescission, or repudiation to revive the original employment contract's termination provisions, seeking significantly higher damages.

The court found a breach of the settlement agreement but rejected the claims for fundamental breach, rescission, and repudiation, concluding that the plaintiff had received substantially the benefit of the settlement.

Damages were awarded for the unpaid balance of the settlement agreement, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs.

The plaintiff, Bryce Clark, sought default judgment against the defendant, 189557 Ontario Inc. (Innovative Composites International Inc.), for breach of a settlement agreement following his employment termination.

The defendant had failed to make six of twelve biweekly salary payments.

The plaintiff claimed fundamental breach with rescission, or alternatively, repudiation, seeking damages based on his original employment contract.

The court found that the defendant breached the settlement agreement but rejected claims of fundamental breach, rescission, or repudiation, as the plaintiff was not deprived of substantially the whole benefit of the contract and no false representation was proven.

The court awarded the plaintiff damages for the outstanding six payments under the settlement agreement, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and fixed costs.

The plaintiff and defendant, mother and daughter, were joint registered owners of a residential property.

After their relationship broke down, the plaintiff sought an order for the sale of the property and equal division of proceeds.

The defendant claimed sole beneficial ownership based on resulting trust, arguing the plaintiff was merely a co-signor, or alternatively claimed unjust enrichment for unequal contributions.

The court found the plaintiff was a true joint legal and beneficial owner, having contributed to the down payment and assumed mortgage liability.

The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding juristic reason for any unequal contributions based on their shared living arrangements and agreements.

The property was ordered sold with proceeds divided equally, subject to specific accounting adjustments for joint debts.

The applicant sought interim spousal support in the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines ($1,510/month), while the respondent proposed an amount just below the low range ($1,000/month).

The court considered the applicant's primary care role for two children with autism, her limited income, her plans to retrain, and the respondent's ability to pay.

Finding that the applicant had established a need and the respondent had the means, the court ordered interim spousal support at the mid-range amount of $1,510 per month, along with interim child support.

The mother brought a motion seeking the return of disputed chattels from the matrimonial home, where the father currently resides.

The father opposed the motion, arguing he needed the furniture to care for the children during his access and potential future custody, and noted he was facing domestic assault charges.

The court dismissed the mother's request for the disputed items, finding no urgent need and that the children were adequately furnished at her residence.

The court did, however, order the return of certain agreed-upon items to the mother.