Breese Davies

The applicant brought a motion for various family law relief, including retroactive and ongoing child support, section 7 expenses, and carrying costs for jointly owned properties.

The court determined the appropriate quantum of ancillary post-secondary education expenses to be included under section 7, finding that the adult child should contribute one-third of these expenses.

The court also addressed the respondent's claim for a credit towards carrying costs and apportioned costs for the motion and subsequent case conferences based on divided success and the parties' conduct.

This was an uncontested trial where the applicant sought sole decision-making responsibility for their child, primary residence, ongoing and retroactive child support, and a divorce.

The respondent did not file an answer or appear.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making authority, ordered the child to reside primarily with the applicant, imputed an income of $22,500 to the respondent for child support calculations, ordered ongoing child support of $197 per month, and retroactive child support of $3,152.

The divorce was also granted, with the court confirming reasonable arrangements for child support were in place.

The insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that the insured's claim for income replacement benefits was not statute-barred, as the termination letter was not clear and unequivocal.

The insured cross-appealed the dismissal of her claim for post-104 week income replacement benefits, arguing the adjudicator failed to consider whether alternative employment was comparable in status and reward.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, holding that the limitation issue was a question of mixed fact and law not subject to appeal, and that the post-104 test under the Schedule does not require alternative employment to be comparable in status and reward.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim child support against both the biological father and the step-father who stood in the place of a parent.

The biological father agreed to pay a monthly amount based on his reported income.

The step-father argued the motion should be adjourned until the biological father's true income could be determined, alleging intentional underemployment.

The court refused to adjourn the motion, finding it contrary to the child's best interests.

The court ordered the step-father to pay $1,609 per month in interim child support, calculating his obligation using a 'top-up' method based on the parents' combined incomes.

The court also granted in part the step-father's cross-motion for financial disclosure from the biological father, ordering production of tax returns and investment statements but finding requests for corporate valuations and tracing to be disproportionate.

The appellant, a licensed professional engineer, appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding him guilty of professional misconduct for providing engineering services to the public without a certificate of authorization and for breaching an agreement not to provide outside services while employed by the respondent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Discipline Committee made no palpable and overriding errors in its factual findings.

The Court also confirmed that under the Professional Engineers Act, all licensed professional engineers require a certificate of authorization to offer or provide services to the public.

Finally, the Court rejected the appellant's arguments regarding procedural unfairness, bias, and abuse of process.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying him income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The central issue was the interpretation of the term 'employed' under section 5(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The appellant argued for a broad interpretation encompassing the formal employment relationship, even though he had not worked or received wages for months prior to his formal termination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjudicators correctly interpreted 'employed' in its statutory context as requiring the exchange of wages for services.

Following a six-day family law trial regarding parenting time and decision-making responsibility, the successful respondent sought costs of $129,037.52.

The applicant argued no costs should be awarded due to his inability to pay and the respondent's conduct.

The court found the respondent was entitled to enhanced costs as her offer to settle the main issue of parenting was as favourable as the trial outcome, though her support offer was not.

Considering the parties' modest financial means, the court reduced the costs claimed, including deducting fees for second counsel and conferences, and ordered the applicant to pay $60,000 in costs over 24 months.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for failure to comply with a prior financial disclosure order and to compel the respondent to obtain an expert valuation of his jewelry business.

The court found the respondent in breach of the disclosure order but declined to strike his pleadings immediately, instead granting him 21 days to comply.

The court also ordered the respondent to obtain an expert business valuation at his own expense due to his inconsistent evidence regarding the business's value.

No costs were awarded due to divided success on the broader motion and the respondent's unreasonable conduct.

The appellants, former employees of Medcan, appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class proceeding for unpaid vacation and public holiday pay on variable compensation.

The certification judge had found that a class action was not the preferable procedure.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the certification judge erred in principle by failing to conduct the preferability analysis through the lens of the three principal goals of class actions, specifically failing to consider barriers to access to justice and behaviour modification.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order compelling the respondent to buy her interest in the matrimonial home, arguing they had reached a binding agreement.

In the alternative, she sought to vary a previous order to dispense with the respondent's consent to sell the home and to hold 50 percent of the sale proceeds in trust.

The court found that the parties had not reached an agreement on all essential terms and that specific performance would not be appropriate even if they had.

The court declined to dispense with the respondent's consent but imposed strict conditions to prevent him from frustrating the sale.

The court also varied the previous order, directing that 50 percent of the sale proceeds be held in trust pending trial to preserve the applicant's potential claim for damages.

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, permission to travel internationally without the respondent father's consent, and child support.

The father had a history of family violence and had ceased participating in the proceedings.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and permitted international travel without consent, subject to providing itineraries.

The court also ordered the father to pay child support based on an imputed income of $30,000 and awarded costs to the mother.

The applicant sought judicial review to declare provisions of O. Reg 282/98 under the Assessment Act invalid.

The applicant argued that the regulation's formula for valuing pipelines resulted in an assessed value greater than current value, which it claimed was inconsistent with the purpose of the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the purpose of the Assessment Act is to provide for the assessment and taxation of property, not strictly to assess based on current value.

Furthermore, the Court held that the Act expressly authorizes the Minister to make regulations providing an alternate method for valuing pipelines.

The appellants, two tenants in a residential property, appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancies for the landlord's own use.

The Divisional Court found that the Board member breached the duty of procedural fairness by excluding each tenant from portions of the virtual hearing where relevant evidence was given, and then relying on that evidence in the decisions.

The appeals were allowed and the matters remitted to the Board for new hearings before a different member.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of a decision denying it a certificate of eligibility for a digital media tax credit.

The delay was 43 months.

The court found that the applicant had a reasonable explanation for most of the delay, having initially pursued an appeal through the tax system in good faith and later experiencing confusion due to changing court procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Finding minimal prejudice to the respondents, the court granted the extension of time.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming the revocation of his hospital privileges at Windsor Regional Hospital.

The hospital revoked his privileges due to his disruptive behaviour and refusal to comply with a new 'Model of Care' for renal patients.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's reasons were sufficient and that there was ample evidence of the appellant's disruptive conduct, which undermined the hospital's policies and staff, justifying the revocation of his privileges.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed a grievance concerning the wage progression of an Electrical Maintenance Technician.

The arbitrator had found that the employer could require a Red Seal Ticket for advancement to the highest pay rate, despite the collective agreement being silent on the issue.

The Divisional Court quashed the award, finding it unreasonable because the arbitrator failed to meaningfully address the conflicting evidence and arguments regarding the interpretation of the collective agreement and past practice.

The matter was remitted to a new arbitrator.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her request to remove the court-appointed Liquidator of a corporation and approving the Liquidator's accounts.

The appellant argued the Liquidator was improperly aligned with the respondent Estate and that the motion judge should have drawn an adverse inference from the lack of evidence explaining communications between them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings or his refusal to draw an adverse inference, and upheld the approval of the accounts.

The appellant sued her former family lawyer for negligence, alleging the lawyer failed to properly advise her regarding spousal support and business valuations when negotiating a separation agreement.

The motion judge stayed the civil action as an abuse of process, ruling that the appellant must first attempt to set aside the separation agreement under the Family Law Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the Family Law Act is a complete code for spousal support claims and the civil system should not be used to circumvent the statutory regime governing matrimonial disputes.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding he committed professional misconduct by sexually abusing an adolescent patient and engaging in disgraceful conduct towards another adolescent boy.

The Committee ordered the mandatory revocation of his certificate of registration.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Committee made palpable and overriding errors of fact and held his evidence to an uneven standard of scrutiny.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee properly evaluated the evidence, made reasonable credibility findings, and correctly concluded the conduct amounted to masturbation requiring mandatory revocation.

The applicant father and respondent mother disputed parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and child support for their three young children.

The mother had a history of severe alcohol addiction, which led to a car accident with the children in 2017 and a subsequent relapse in 2019.

However, she had maintained sobriety for 18 months prior to trial.

The father sought sole decision-making and limited parenting time, while the mother sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time.

The court found that the mother had successfully managed her addiction and that it was in the children's best interests to have equal parenting time and joint decision-making responsibility.

A transition period was ordered to gradually increase the mother's parenting time.

Ongoing child support was terminated upon the commencement of equal parenting time due to the father's disproportionately higher housing costs.