Audrey P. Ramsay

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.

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.

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.