Bradley W. Miller

The former estate trustee of an estate brought a motion to enforce an alleged settlement relating to the passing of accounts and compensation for her administration of the estate.

The respondents argued that no binding settlement existed because essential terms—specifically the scope and form of mutual releases—had not been agreed upon.

The court reviewed the correspondence between counsel following the purported acceptance of an offer and concluded that negotiations continued and that a serious disagreement persisted regarding the releases.

The court held that the releases constituted an essential term of the proposed settlement.

Because there was no agreement on that essential term, no enforceable settlement contract existed.

Following the breakdown of a marriage with one child, the parties sought determinations regarding child support, spousal support, and income imputation.

The applicant argued that the respondent was intentionally underemployed and requested that income be imputed for the purpose of calculating child support, while the respondent sought spousal support.

The court found that the respondent had made genuine and extensive efforts to obtain employment and was not intentionally underemployed, declining to impute income.

The court ordered the respondent to pay child support based on her actual income and found that she had established entitlement to spousal support based on economic interdependency and need following the marriage breakdown.

Ongoing spousal support was ordered on an indefinite basis, subject to review upon a material change in circumstances.

The moving party brought a motion to change a prior support order seeking termination of child support for two adult children, retroactive termination of spousal support, and credit for alleged overpayment.

The court reviewed the parties’ financial evidence, recalculated child support obligations under the Federal Child Support Guidelines, and determined that both children ceased to be dependants after completing high school.

Child support obligations were terminated retroactively for each child at the end of their respective schooling periods, resulting in a reduction of arrears.

Spousal support entitlement was not revisited, but the court terminated ongoing spousal support as of the date the motion was commenced and recalculated arrears using the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court fixed the remaining arrears and directed issuance of a support deduction order.

The accused applied for a bail review after being detained on secondary grounds following charges involving drug trafficking, firearms, identity theft-related offences, and breaches of recognizance.

The reviewing judge found that the justice of the peace erred in principle by failing to properly assess the proposed supervision plan and by making a factual error regarding the amount of money found on the accused.

The court reassessed the detention decision under both the secondary and tertiary grounds of s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

Although the allegations were serious and involved drugs, firearms, and identity theft, the court concluded that the proposed surety and strict supervision plan sufficiently mitigated the risk of reoffending.

Detention was therefore not justified and release was ordered with strict conditions.

The respondent sought leave to appeal temporary family law orders requiring payment of child support, spousal support, and costs, and requested a stay pending appeal.

The challenge focused on the motion judge’s imputation of income that included legal fees paid by the respondent’s father as part of the respondent’s income for support purposes.

The court held there was good reason to doubt the correctness of including third‑party payment of legal fees in the imputation of income and that the issue was of sufficient importance to warrant appellate review.

Leave to appeal was granted on that narrow issue.

A partial stay of the support and costs orders was also granted pending appeal, with reduced interim child and spousal support amounts based only on other financial benefits received from the respondent’s father.

The appellant appealed summary conviction findings of guilt for making false or deceptive statements and wilfully evading compliance with reporting provisions under the Customs Act in connection with the importation of a motor vehicle.

The trial judge found that the appellant deliberately structured the shipment of a prohibited kit car into two separate shipments and falsely described the goods as automotive parts in order to circumvent importation rules.

On appeal, the appellant argued errors in the interpretation of the Customs Act and related regulations, improper rejection of tariff classification arguments, and alleged violations of Charter rights.

The appeal court held that the case was not about tariff classification but about knowingly making false declarations to customs officials.

Finding no legal error, misapprehension of evidence, or Charter breach, the court upheld the convictions.

The appellant appealed a conviction for impaired driving, arguing that the trial judge erred in relying on in‑court identification evidence to establish that he was the driver of the vehicle.

The appeal court considered the principles governing eyewitness identification, including the limited weight typically given to in‑court identification.

It concluded that the trial judge did not place undue weight on the in‑court identification and that sufficient independent evidence supported the finding that the accused had been driving the vehicle.

Considering the totality of the evidence, including witness observations and the matching licence plate, the conviction was supported beyond a reasonable doubt.

Following a successful summary conviction appeal in which a new trial was ordered due to non‑disclosure of the operating manual for an approved screening device, the appellant sought a stay of proceedings and costs against the Crown under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

The court considered the principles governing stays for abuse of process and the limited residual category under s. 7 of the Charter.

It held that the Crown’s conduct did not render the prosecution unfair or damage the integrity of the justice system so as to justify a stay.

Applying Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on costs in criminal matters, the court also found the non‑disclosure did not amount to a marked and unacceptable departure from reasonable prosecutorial standards.

The application for a stay and for costs was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment in a family law application seeking sole custody, child support, and spousal support.

The respondent failed to file an answer or comply with disclosure orders, and the matter proceeded as an uncontested trial.

The court granted the applicant sole custody and the right to travel with the child without the respondent's consent.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on financial support from his parents and ordered him to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, retroactive spousal support, and $50,000 in costs.

A family law trial concerning divorce, custody, access, child support, and equalization of net family property following a contentious separation.

The applicant suffered an anoxic brain injury after a motor vehicle accident and had previously been found incapable of managing property under the Substitute Decisions Act, though medical evidence indicated significant cognitive recovery and ability to parent.

The court assessed competing claims for custody and concerns about the applicant’s medical condition and parenting capacity.

Applying the best interests of the children test, the court found the applicant capable of parenting and providing a stable environment, while the respondent’s plans to relocate internationally created instability concerns.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant, set an access schedule for the respondent, imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes, and ordered an equalization payment.

A contractor sought a declaration enforcing a construction lien for unpaid excavation and waterproofing work performed on a residential property.

The homeowners counterclaimed, alleging the work failed to stop existing basement leaks and caused additional water infiltration due to an improperly functioning drainage system.

After reviewing expert evidence, photographs, and testimony regarding the installation of weeping tiles, grading, and waterproofing, the court found the contractor failed to fulfill its contractual obligation to stop the leaks.

The evidence established that water infiltration continued and a new leak developed after the work, requiring a complete replacement of the waterproofing and drainage system by another contractor.

The court dismissed the lien claim and awarded damages representing the reasonable cost of the replacement work, less the original contract amount and unrelated improvements.

In family litigation following separation, the applicant brought a motion seeking enforcement of prior disclosure orders and requested a daily monetary penalty for non-compliance under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.

The court reviewed the respondent’s disclosure relating to two corporations and inter‑company financial transactions and found significant deficiencies, including missing invoices, incomplete financial records, and failure to provide a detailed general ledger.

The court concluded that the respondent had not complied with earlier disclosure orders and that the explanations provided were insufficient.

The respondent was ordered to produce specified financial records and explanations by a set deadline, failing which daily penalties of $500 would apply.

The respondent was also directed to bring a motion requiring a third party associated with a related corporation to produce corporate financial records.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash his committal for trial following a preliminary inquiry on charges of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and conspiracy to possess heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The applicant argued the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded her jurisdiction because there was no evidence that he knew the shipment he handled contained heroin or any controlled substance.

The court reviewed the governing test under s. 548 of the Criminal Code and the jurisprudence in Shephard, Arcuri, and related authorities, emphasizing the highly deferential standard applicable on certiorari review of committal decisions.

The court held that the circumstantial evidence, including phone intercepts, coordinated activity with a co‑accused, and handling of the shipment, was capable of supporting an inference of knowledge if believed.

As some evidence existed on the essential element of knowledge, the preliminary inquiry judge acted within jurisdiction and the committal could not be disturbed.

The applicant brought a motion to change prior custody and access orders concerning three children, seeking sole custody and supervised access for the respondent.

Evidence showed ongoing high conflict, inappropriate communications by the respondent toward the applicant, and concerns regarding emotional regulation during parenting.

An investigation by the Office of the Children's Lawyer recommended sole custody to the applicant and therapeutic supervised access for the respondent.

The court found a material change in circumstances under the Children’s Law Reform Act and concluded that joint parenting was no longer workable.

Sole custody was granted to the applicant, with therapeutic supervised access for the respondent subject to review.