Audrey P. Ramsay

The applicant sought to set aside a marriage contract executed in St. Lucia the day before the parties' wedding.

The court determined that Ontario law applied to the contract.

Although the contract met the formal requirements of the Family Law Act, the court found grounds to set it aside under section 56(4).

The respondent failed to disclose significant assets, including his pension and real property, the applicant did not understand the nature or consequences of the contract, and she signed it under duress related to her immigration status.

The court exercised its discretion to set aside the agreement due to substantial unfairness in the bargaining process.

The father brought a motion seeking an order for the child to attend school in Toronto.

The mother opposed, requesting the child be enrolled in a Barrie school, where she had recently relocated.

The court found no evidence that the mother had misled the court regarding her move, clarifying that a move within the province by the primary caregiver is not a "relocation" requiring court permission.

Applying the "best interests of the child" principle, the court determined that the mother, as the primary decision-maker, had acted in the child's best interest by moving for more space and lower living costs.

The father's motion was dismissed.

The respondent father moved to change child support orders from 2007, seeking recalculation and retroactive reduction based on changed circumstances and alleged double-dipping by FRO.

The applicant mother opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding he failed to provide admissible evidence of a material change in circumstances or new evidence, and that his claims of physical limitations and misrepresentation of income were unsubstantiated and not properly before the court.

The court emphasized the payor's burden to prove a material change and the inadmissibility of unsworn evidence.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The defendants, as the successful party, sought partial and substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs argued for no costs, asserting divided success and impecuniosity.

The court found the defendants were entirely successful, rejected the plaintiffs' arguments regarding divided success and impecuniosity, and awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants, totaling $177,123.68.

This high-conflict family law motion concerned the respondent mother's request to travel to Pakistan with the parties' seven-year-old son without the applicant father's consent, and to compel the father to consent to the child's passport renewal.

The applicant opposed, alleging abduction risk and citing safety concerns from Canadian travel advisories.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding the risks to the child's safety and security, coupled with the difficulty of return from a non-Hague Convention signatory country, outweighed the travel's benefits.

The applicant's cross-motion for Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement was deemed premature.

This endorsement addresses an appointment to settle a costs judgment previously rendered.

The plaintiffs, Amelin Engineering Ltd. and Michael Elinson, objected to Michael Elinson's personal liability for costs.

The defendants, Steam-Eng Inc. and Blower Engineering Inc., submitted a draft order reflecting a compromise on the set-off of costs.

The court, being functus officio regarding the original costs disposition, rejected both parties' immediate positions.

The judge refused to sign the defendants' draft order because it reflected a compromise rather than the court's original disposition.

The court directed the defendants to submit a new draft order that accurately reflects the original costs endorsement, outlining the process for its approval.

The Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario sought penalties against Latif Alsoma for civil contempt, stemming from his breach of a 2018 consent order prohibiting him from practicing dentistry without a license and holding himself out as a dentist.

The court found Alsoma in contempt due to his deliberate and unremorseful actions, including performing controlled dental acts on a patient over an extended period and maintaining a dental clinic without registered dentists.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of 45 days house arrest, 100 hours of community service, and a $10,000 fine payable to the Provincial Treasurer.

A permanent injunction mirroring the consent order was also granted, along with substantial indemnity costs to the College, but investigatory costs were denied.

The plaintiff, Michael Forstner, sued the defendants, Manbir Singh Sandhu, Gurpreet Singh Sandhu, and Computer Window Inc., for conversion of a computer/dialer and for assault and battery following an altercation.

The court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims.

It found that the plaintiff failed to prove conversion, as the computer was returned, and that the alleged assault and battery by Mrs. Sandhu was not established on a balance of probabilities.

The plaintiff's credibility was significantly undermined by inconsistent evidence regarding the purchase date and timeline of events.

Damages for conversion and personal injury were also not proven.

The defendants' counterclaim was withdrawn at the outset of the trial.

The applicant husband commenced a divorce application in Ontario while residing in India.

The respondent wife, who had never lived in Canada, subsequently commenced divorce and support proceedings in India.

The respondent brought a motion to stay or dismiss the Ontario application for lack of jurisdiction.

The court granted the motion, finding that neither party had been habitually resident in Ontario for at least one year prior to the application, as required by the Divorce Act.

The court also held that the respondent could not attorn to a jurisdiction the court did not possess, and that under the Family Law Act, the parties' property rights were governed by the law of India, their last common habitual residence.

This costs endorsement follows a judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claims and largely granting the defendant's counterclaim regarding property ownership and accounting.

The court addressed the plaintiffs' argument that costs should be capped under simplified procedure rules, rejecting it because the action predated the rule change.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle.

The court, however, awarded partial indemnity costs, finding that substantial indemnity generally requires reprehensible conduct, which was absent in this case.

The court assessed the quantum of costs based on proportionality, reasonableness, and the parties' expectations, making adjustments to the defendant's claimed amount.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside or stay an automatic financial disclosure order, pending a summary judgment motion to determine the enforceability of a 1995 separation agreement that included a spousal support waiver.

The applicant argued that disclosure was necessary to defend against the summary judgment motion.

The court declined to order the full disclosure mandated by the automatic order (Rule 8.0.1 of the Family Law Rules), finding that the threshold issue of the separation agreement's validity should be determined first.

The court emphasized that current financial disclosure was not relevant to the validity of the 1995 agreement and that ordering it would be disproportionate and could derail the pending summary judgment motion.

The respondent father sought a s. 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act or, alternatively, multi-faceted family therapy.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction as all issues had been resolved by Minutes of Settlement, which included a dispute resolution mechanism.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the parties had settled all issues and there was no active proceeding before the court.

The court further noted that even if it had jurisdiction, a s. 30 assessment was not warranted given the extensive prior professional involvement and the intrusive, costly nature of such assessments.

The applicant father sought parenting and decision-making orders for his two adult children, primarily to facilitate access to government benefits and Canadian citizenship for the children.

The respondent mother was self-represented and did not file an Answer.

The court, proceeding as an uncontested trial, dismissed the application, finding no jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act to make parenting or decision-making orders for adult children who are not under a disability and are able to withdraw from parental control.

The court also noted the applicant's failure to file a factum.

The respondent wife brought a motion to strike the applicant husband's application due to his repeated failure to comply with multiple disclosure orders in their divorce proceedings concerning financial matters, spousal support, child support, and equalization of net family property.

While the court found the applicant's non-compliance wilful, it declined to strike the pleadings immediately due to recent, albeit late, disclosure.

Instead, the court ordered the applicant to provide specific outstanding financial disclosure within strict timelines, including a business valuation, updated financial statements, and tax returns.

Failure to comply with certain orders would result in the abandonment of related claims, and the respondent was granted leave to bring a further urgent motion to strike if the applicant failed to meet the new deadlines.

The appellant, G.H., appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board that upheld a physician's finding of her incapacity to consent to antipsychotic medication and a Community Treatment Plan (CTP), and confirmed the renewal of a Community Treatment Order (CTO).

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's determination that G.H. was unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of her treatment decisions due to her mental disorder, and that the CTO criteria were met.

The court also upheld the Board's dismissal of preliminary objections.

The applicant, Shantee Grant, sought orders appointing her as guardian of property and guardian of the person for her grandmother, Dorothy May Robinson, who suffers from advanced Alzheimer's dementia and schizophrenia.

The court found Mrs. Robinson incapable of managing her property and personal care.

It was determined that Mrs. Robinson's previously appointed Attorney for Property had neglected his duties, and her sister, acting as substitute decision-maker for personal care, made decisions not in Mrs. Robinson's best interests.

The court found no less restrictive alternative courses of action.

Consequently, the applicant was appointed as guardian for both property and personal care, and the existing Power of Attorney for Property was terminated.

Costs were awarded to the applicant and the Public Guardian and Trustee, payable from Mrs. Robinson's estate.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for over $500,000, alleging they made various loans and investments to the defendants over a decade while their daughter lived with the defendants as a homestay student.

The defendants argued the funds were payments for the daughter's room, board, tuition, and other expenses.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action in its entirety, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of the alleged loans and investments.

Furthermore, the court held that all of the plaintiffs' claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiffs failed to act with due diligence in pursuing the alleged debts.

The applicant employer sought an interlocutory injunction to enforce non-competition and confidentiality clauses against a former employee who resigned and joined a competitor.

The employee had signed an employment agreement and later a shareholder agreement containing broader restrictive covenants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the restrictive covenants were reasonable or enforceable, as they were overly broad and ambiguous.

The court also found no evidence of irreparable harm, as the applicant's claims of misused confidential information were speculative, and the balance of convenience favoured the employee.

The defendants, Suhaib Alekozai and Behzad Dalf-Ajresh, sought costs following a ten-day jury trial where they were entirely successful on the issues of causation and damages.

The plaintiff, Rhonda Anderson, did not make costs submissions.

The defendants requested costs on a partial indemnity basis, totaling $72,655.65.

The court, applying section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the requested legal fees fair and reasonable given the trial's complexity and the plaintiff's initial claims versus the jury's zero damages award.

However, the court disallowed certain disbursements for lack of explanation or proportionality, ultimately awarding the defendants costs totaling $68,137.68.

The plaintiffs, a mother and son, brought an action against the defendant, the mother's separated spouse, regarding the ownership of an investment property.

The plaintiffs claimed the defendant held his registered 33 percent interest in trust for the son, who allegedly contributed to the purchase and renovations.

The defendant relied on a marriage contract that stipulated ownership governed property division and counterclaimed for partition and sale, an accounting of rental income, and the return of personal belongings.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' trust claims, finding the marriage contract binding and the son's contributions unproven.

The court granted the defendant's counterclaim for partition and sale, an accounting of rental income from 2017 onwards, and the return of his personal belongings.