Brian R. Kelly

The applicant mother initially obtained an ex parte order granting her sole custody, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and a restraining order against the respondent father.

The court vacated the ex parte order after finding the applicant failed to disclose material facts, including her own recent initiation of intimacy and her admission that she sought supervised access merely because the respondent changed his work schedule.

On the interim motion, the court denied the applicant's request for a restraining order and supervised access, finding the status quo was shared parenting.

The court ordered an alternating 2-2-3 residential schedule.

The parties settled their family law dispute regarding spousal support and property on the eve of trial, leaving only the issue of costs to be determined.

The respondent sought costs based on an early offer to settle, while the applicant argued for no costs or a nominal amount due to the respondent's late disclosure of her job loss.

The court found that both parties had withheld important productions and acted unreasonably at times.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court ordered the applicant to pay $5,000 in costs to the respondent.

The plaintiff claimed her water well was contaminated by municipal sewage waste (biosolids) applied to her neighbor's farmland, alleging nuisance and negligence.

The defendant brought a third-party claim against the farm lessee and the biosolids applicator.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding that she failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the biosolids application caused the well contamination.

Crucially, no E. coli., the primary indicator of sewage contamination, was detected in any water samples, despite the presence of other bacteria commonly found in the natural environment.

The court also dismissed the third-party action.

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed for failing to comply with a Property Standards Order issued under the Building Code Act.

The appellant was convicted of non-compliance with an order requiring repairs to a residential property by August 15, 2012.

The sentencing judge imposed a $2,000 fine and six-month probation order.

The appellant challenged the sentence on grounds that evidence from her husband was improperly excluded and that certain factual findings were erroneous.

The appellate court upheld the sentence, finding it fit and proportionate within the acceptable range for the offence.

The appellant unsecured creditor appealed a decision dismissing an appeal from a Deputy Registrar's refusal to lift a stay of proceedings under s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Deputy Registrar had properly considered the equitable grounds to lift the stay and applied the correct test.

In a dispute arising from four leases and one rental agreement, the court determined the defendant's indebtedness after rejecting the plaintiff's calculations of buyout provisions and administrative fees and disallowing insurance charges where the defendant had proven coverage.

The court accepted the defendant's calculation of outstanding indebtedness subject to a further deduction for improper insurance charges, resulting in a net amount owing of $42,101.47.

On prejudgment interest, the court selected the date of the last payment as the date of default and enforced the contractual interest rate of 24% per annum.

Funds previously paid into court were ordered released to the plaintiff and credited against the amount owing.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include allegations of systemic discrimination and events predating February 2011.

The respondents argued these amendments were prejudicial and that allegations predating October 2011 were untimely.

The Tribunal denied the request to add systemic discrimination and earlier events due to prejudice.

It also dismissed allegations predating June 30, 2011 as having no reasonable prospect of success, since the respondents were unaware of the applicant's disability before then.

The Tribunal found that the July 2011 return to work meeting was not part of a series of incidents and was therefore untimely, with no good faith explanation for the delay.

However, allegations regarding repeated requests for medical documentation were allowed to proceed as a potential series of incidents.

The appellant, a licensed electrical contractor, appealed a decision of the review panel of the Electrical Safety Authority confirming a defect notice.

The notice was issued after the appellant disconnected and reconnected an electrical panel without authorization, allegedly violating rule 2-012 of the Ontario Electrical Safety Code.

The Divisional Court determined the standard of review was reasonableness and found the review panel's broad interpretation of the rule—requiring authorization for all disconnections regardless of method or reason—was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

A creditor appealed a deputy registrar’s refusal to lift the automatic stay of proceedings under s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act following the debtor’s bankruptcy.

The creditor argued the underlying judgment involved conduct amounting to fraudulent misrepresentation such that the debt would survive discharge under s. 178(1)(e), and that the registrar failed to consider sound reasons to lift the stay.

The court held that the registrar correctly applied the governing principles and was not required to make new findings of fraud absent such findings by the trial judge.

Because the underlying judgment contained no finding of fraud or false pretences, and lifting the stay would give the creditor an advantage inconsistent with the statutory scheme, there was no basis to interfere.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the production of various documents, videos, and unredacted notes from the employer and the union.

At the hearing, the parties resolved the production issues, with the applicant withdrawing some requests and the respondents agreeing to produce the remaining requested materials.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to produce the agreed-upon documents and set a schedule for written submissions on an outstanding timeliness issue.

Following dismissal of a motion to set aside a prior order, the successful party sought recovery of legal costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court considered the Rule 24(11) factors and the costs consequences of an unaccepted Rule 18 offer to settle.

The moving party had pursued relief despite ongoing non‑compliance with financial disclosure obligations and ignored an early settlement offer.

The court found the litigation conduct unreasonable and ordered full recovery of the costs claimed.

Seventy‑five percent of the costs were characterized as relating to child support issues and were therefore enforceable by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office under the Family Law Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996.

Following the execution of an Anton Piller order in a commercial dispute, certain seized documents were identified as relating to “controlled goods” under the Defence Production Act.

The moving party sought an order declaring that the independent supervising solicitor appointed under the Anton Piller order was not required to register under Part 2 of the Defence Production Act in order to possess or examine such documents.

The Attorney General of Canada intervened and argued that the registration requirements applied.

The court held that an independent supervising solicitor appointed under the Model Anton Piller Order functions as a person employed for the execution of civil process and qualifies as a “peace officer” within the meaning of the Criminal Code for the limited purpose of the statutory exemption.

Accordingly, the solicitor was exempt from the registration requirement under s. 36 of the Defence Production Act.

A custody and child support dispute following a nine‑day trial concerning a child born in 2006 to unmarried parents.

The applicant sought sole custody and increased child support, while the respondent sought joint custody and equal week‑about parenting time.

The court addressed complex issues regarding the respondent’s income derived from numerous corporations and preferred the evidence of the respondent’s financial expert when determining income for child support purposes.

Child support was fixed at $3,750 per month based on an averaged income assessment and the child’s realistic needs, with no retroactive award given the respondent’s longstanding voluntary payments.

Joint custody was ordered with the child’s primary residence with the mother and structured parenting time for the father.

An employee brought a wrongful dismissal claim after her employment as a clinical trials coordinator was terminated without cause after more than eight years of service.

The court determined the effective working notice period was 6.5 weeks because the employer’s revised termination letter replaced the original notice, resetting the notice date.

Applying the Bardal factors, including the employee’s age (64), length of service, professional responsibilities, and limited availability of comparable employment, the court fixed reasonable notice at ten months.

The employer argued the employee failed to mitigate by not applying for hospital nursing positions, but the court held the employer failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that additional efforts would likely have resulted in higher income.

Damages were awarded after deducting mitigation income.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking joint custody and expanded access to the parties’ young child, while the respondent mother sought sole custody, supervised or suspended access, retroactive child support, interim spousal support, and transfer of the proceeding to another municipality.

The court found the parties’ affidavit evidence on allegations of abuse and parental involvement to be sharply conflicting and incapable of resolution on a motion record.

Maintaining the status quo, the court granted the mother interim sole custody pending the report of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The father was granted a gradual reintroduction to the child beginning with short-term supervised access at a supervised access centre before transitioning to unsupervised and then overnight parenting time.

The court declined to order retroactive child support, refused interim spousal support due to lack of demonstrated need, and dismissed the request to transfer the proceeding.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering the return of the respondent's investment funds.

The appellant argued the trial was unfair because he was self-represented, that there was insufficient evidence the respondent made the advances, and that there was no legal justification for returning the investment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no unfairness in the trial process, sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's findings, and that the appellant's failure to account for the advanced funds justified the order for their return.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the action against her.

The plaintiff had advanced $250,000 to a co-defendant for investment purposes and alleged losses after the funds were traded and lost.

The moving defendant was a joint holder of a bank account through which some of the funds briefly passed, but there was no evidence she participated in the transfers, trading activity, or received any benefit from the funds.

The court applied the summary judgment framework under Rule 20.04 and the “full appreciation test” from Combined Air Mechanical Services v. Flesch.

Finding no evidence supporting liability or a viable tracing claim, and determining the Fraudulent Conveyances Act claim was premature, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and dismissed the action against the moving defendant.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking regular unsupervised parenting time with the parties’ children following separation.

The respondent mother opposed overnight access and requested that the father’s contact occur only in her presence due to allegations of abusive and aggressive behaviour.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under s. 16 of the Divorce Act and considered the factors in s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

Although the evidence included conflicting allegations and credibility concerns, child protection investigations had not identified safety risks.

The court concluded that supervision was not warranted and ordered a graduated schedule increasing the father’s parenting time leading to alternate weekends and mid‑week overnights.

The plaintiff brought an action seeking recovery of funds allegedly invested in two restaurant ventures with the defendant, asserting that the parties were equal partners and that the defendant retained proceeds and investments without accounting.

The defendant denied the existence of a partnership in the first venture and argued that the plaintiff was merely an investor in the second.

The court assessed conflicting evidence and found the defendant’s testimony unreliable, concluding that the plaintiff had invested substantial funds and that the defendant had been unjustly enriched.

The court held that the plaintiff was a partner or investor in both ventures and entitled to recover the invested amounts.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiff, subject to the Small Claims Court monetary jurisdictional limit.

Following the dismissal of a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the responding defendants sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court considered Rule 20.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and rejected the argument that substantial indemnity costs should presumptively apply, noting the rule no longer creates such a presumption.

The court also held that the defendants’ Offer to Settle did not trigger Rule 49.10 because it lacked a genuine element of compromise and included a demand for substantial indemnity costs.

Given that the plaintiff would likely recover some damages at trial, the court determined that the most appropriate course was to reserve the costs of the motion to the trial judge for determination in the context of the overall proceeding.