Audrey P. Ramsay

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action following the defendants' failure to defend.

The court adjourned the motion without prejudice due to several threshold issues: lack of proof of service of the motion materials, the damages claimed exceeding the $200,000 monetary jurisdiction of the simplified procedure (Rule 76), the action being commenced in the wrong venue (Toronto instead of Brampton or Burlington), and reliance on inadmissible hearsay and unsworn exhibit contents in the supporting affidavit.

A case conference was directed to resolve the venue issue.

The plaintiff, a start-up, sought an urgent interlocutory injunction to compel the defendants to hand over the source code and software assets needed to operate its business, and to prevent the defendants from exploiting them.

The individual defendant, a co-founder and the plaintiff's Chief Technology Officer, argued that his corporate entity owned the intellectual property, which pre-dated the plaintiff's incorporation.

The plaintiff relied on assignment agreements executed by the defendant.

The motion judge granted the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the assignment and employment status, irreparable harm to the plaintiff's business and reputation if denied access to the software, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

Following a successful ten-day trial in which the applicant was awarded equalization and relief for oppressive conduct, she sought her costs on a full recovery basis.

The court found that the self-represented respondent acted in bad faith by willfully concealing assets and repeatedly breaching court orders, justifying full recovery.

Costs were fixed at $305,631 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant sought an equalization of net family property, a divorce, and the dismissal of the respondent's claim for spousal support.

The respondent did not attend the trial, which proceeded on an uncontested basis.

The court determined the date of separation, dismissed the respondent's spousal support claim, and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $178,487.82.

The court enforced the payment by ordering the transfer of the respondent's share of the net proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home and a lump sum transfer from her pension.

Prejudgment interest was also awarded due to the respondent's non-disclosure and delay.

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing for court approval of a $10,000 settlement of the minor plaintiff's derivative Family Law Act claim arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court approved the settlement amount as fair and reasonable.

However, the court declined the request to pay the settlement funds directly to the minor's parent and litigation guardian, interpreting recent amendments to Rule 7.09 and the Children's Law Reform Act to maintain the presumption of payment into court absent evidence justifying an alternative arrangement.

The court also refused to sign the submitted draft judgment because it improperly incorporated unsigned minutes of settlement, bound a non-party insurer, and included overly broad release language.

The defendant insurer filed a request under Rule 2.1 to stay or dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal and disability benefits action, arguing it was duplicative of a prior Human Rights Tribunal application.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the existence of multiple proceedings involving similar issues is not automatically an abuse of process.

The court concluded that determining whether the action violated principles of judicial economy or finality was not appropriate for summary disposition under Rule 2.1.

The plaintiff moved for default judgment in an action for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The motion was supported solely by an affidavit from a law clerk containing hearsay and double hearsay evidence.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, holding that a plaintiff must prove damages with admissible evidence and that affidavits based on information and belief from law firm staff are insufficient for contentious matters or proving the contents of exhibits.

The applicant mother sought orders for primary residence, parenting time discretion, imputed income, retroactive and ongoing child support, and a no-contact order following the parties' separation.

The respondent father failed to attend the trial.

The court granted the applicant primary residence and discretion over parenting time, subject to conditions, due to the respondent's inconsistent exercise of parenting time and failure to communicate.

Income of $171,701 was imputed to the respondent due to his failure to provide financial disclosure regarding his incorporated business.

The court ordered retroactive and ongoing child support based on the imputed income, enforced section 7 arrears, and granted a no-contact order under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondent brought a motion for interim child and spousal support.

The parties were separated but continued to reside in the matrimonial home with their children.

The applicant was paying all carrying costs for the home, joint debts, and children's expenses.

The court dismissed the motion as premature, finding that interim support is generally not payable when the payor spouse covers all carrying costs while the parties reside together under the same roof.

The respondent was granted liberty to renew the motion once the matrimonial home is sold.

In a family law trial to determine child support, both parties sought to impute income to the other.

The applicant mother, a pediatrician, had previously operated a medical professional corporation and filed a consumer proposal that forgave significant tax debt.

The respondent father, a university professor, had taken a sabbatical and received substantial undocumented funds from his family.

The court declined to impute income to the mother for underemployment or the forgiven tax debt, but included her pre-tax corporate income.

The court imputed $25,000 annually to the father for the family funds, finding them to be gifts rather than loans.

Given the shared parenting arrangement and the parties' similar imputed incomes, table child support was set off to zero, and section 7 expenses were ordered to be shared equally.

The mother's request for a sealing order was dismissed.

This is a costs decision following the determination of the date of separation in a family law proceeding.

The applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $15,377.04 to the date of her offer to settle (November 21, 2023) and $30,662.55 thereafter, plus disbursements of $3,409.77.

The respondent, who was self-represented, did not provide costs submissions despite directions from the court.

The court found the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs as the successful party, but limited the award to costs related to the trial of the separation date issue rather than the entire proceeding.

The court awarded $30,000 plus HST ($3,900) for a total of $33,900, finding this amount fair, reasonable, and proportionate to the circumstances.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for oppressive conduct under the Business Corporations Act, breach of contract, and breach of the duty of good faith.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following their offers to settle, but the court found the offers did not comply with Rule 49 due to uncertain release terms.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting the defendants' argument for elevated costs despite allegations of fraud made by the plaintiff.

The court considered the complexity of the proceeding, the amounts claimed, the rates and hours spent by counsel, and the reasonable expectations of the parties.

The respondent obtained a successful motion for a parenting order regarding three children of a marriage in Switzerland and sought substantial costs of $9,772.24.

The applicant opposed the costs award, arguing no costs should be awarded or alternatively that costs should not exceed 40% on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the respondent was the successful party overall despite some issues being decided in the applicant's favour, and awarded costs of $6,000 including disbursements and HST, applying the proportionality principle and considering all factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The applicants, three siblings, sought compensation for their claimed interest in a townhouse property (Haig property) purchased by the respondents.

The applicants alleged a verbal agreement to invest equally in the property with the respondents, contributing to downpayment loans, mortgage payments, and carrying costs.

The respondents denied any such agreement, claiming the applicants were tenants paying below-market rent.

The court found a joint investment agreement existed based on extensive evidence including expense tracking spreadsheets, e-transfer records, and testimony.

The court awarded each applicant $155,000 representing their one-fifth interest in the net sale proceeds.

Additionally, the applicant Kiran was awarded non-compensatory spousal support based on need and her chronic medical condition, with retroactive support from October 2021 and ongoing monthly support until September 2032.

A comprehensive family law trial decision addressing parenting, property division, and oppression claims arising from a marriage breakdown.

The applicant mother sought to vary a consent parenting order, enforce section 7 expenses, obtain equalization of family property, and pursue oppression remedies against a numbered company.

The respondent father resisted variation of the parenting order and disputed property valuations.

The court found the respondent in breach of the consent order regarding parenting coordination, awarded sole decision-making responsibility to the applicant, ordered equalization payment of $56,011.23, found oppressive conduct by the respondent and the numbered company, and ordered the winding up of the numbered company.

Claims for loss of opportunity damages and punitive/aggravated damages were dismissed.

Cette décision porte sur une motion du père intimé visant à exercer son temps parental avec les trois enfants du mariage en Suisse durant l’été 2025.

La mère s’oppose à ce que le père ait dix jours consécutifs de temps parental et propose des conditions alternatives, notamment le retour quotidien des enfants.

Le tribunal analyse l’intérêt supérieur des enfants, la répartition des frais de voyage, la question de la résidence habituelle, et les garanties de sécurité.

L’ordonnance accorde au père dix jours consécutifs de temps parental en Suisse, avec partage des frais et diverses conditions logistiques et de sécurité.

Ce jugement porte sur une demande non contestée de divorce et de mesures accessoires, incluant la garde, la pension alimentaire pour enfants, la répartition des biens et des ordonnances de non-communication, dans un contexte d’allégations de violence familiale.

La Cour accorde le divorce, la garde exclusive à la mère, la résidence principale des enfants chez la mère, une pension alimentaire basée sur un revenu imputé au père, et des ordonnances accessoires pour la stabilité et la sécurité des enfants.

La Cour refuse la renonciation à la pension alimentaire pour conjoint et à l’égalisation des biens, faute de preuve suffisante.

Une ordonnance de non-communication limitée est rendue.

Les dépens sont accordés à la requérante.

The court determines the date of separation for the purposes of divorce, equalization, and related relief between Mei Yang and Weidong Xie.

The applicant asserted a separation date of June 20, 2022, while the respondent claimed December 31, 2014.

After a detailed review of the parties’ credibility, documentary evidence, and the objective factors relevant to separation, the court finds the applicant’s evidence more credible and sets the date of separation as June 20, 2022.

The plaintiff, a former consultant and minority shareholder of Kela Medical Inc., brought an action for oppression, breach of contract, and breach of the duty of good faith against the corporation and its principals.

The plaintiff claimed he was entitled to a 33% stake in the proceeds of the sale of a related company, KAI, based on a 2013 compensation agreement.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the 2013 Agreement was a one-year contract that expired before the conditions for the plaintiff's claimed benefits were met.

The court also found no oppressive conduct or misrepresentations by the defendants.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff's claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as he knew or ought to have known the material facts giving rise to his claims when he resigned in 2014, more than two years before commencing the proceeding.

In a high-conflict family law trial, the applicant father sought primary residence and sole decision-making for the parties' seven-year-old child, while the respondent mother sought a 'therapeutic goodbye' to sever the father's relationship with the child.

The mother had made numerous allegations of family violence and child sexual abuse against the father, resulting in criminal charges that were later withdrawn.

The court found that the mother engaged in severe parental alienation, coached the child to make false abuse allegations, and deliberately sabotaged 51 court-ordered supervised parenting visits.

Concluding that the mother's restrictive gatekeeping and alienating behaviour caused psychological harm to the child, the court awarded sole decision-making and primary residence to the father, along with a five-month no-contact order for the mother.

The court also ordered the partition and sale of the matrimonial home, imputed an income of $60,000 to the mother for child support, and ordered her to pay an equalization payment of $100,327.47.