C.

The Respondent Mother brought a motion seeking police enforcement of a final order and supervised parenting time for the Applicant Father.

She alleged the Applicant Father overheld the child in Montreal, contrary to a previous order, and has a history of disobeying court orders, including a restraining order and prior parenting time orders that required police intervention.

The Applicant Father argued his actions were justified by concerns about the child being taken to Cambodia and that his past breaches were irrelevant or excusable.

The court found the Applicant Father's history of non-compliance and threatening behaviour constituted family violence, demonstrating a pattern of coercive and controlling conduct.

The motion was granted, ordering supervised in-person parenting time for the Applicant Father due to concerns about his trustworthiness, the child's emotional safety, and threats made.

The Crown brought a motion to adjourn a trial scheduled for June 27, 2019, in a careless driving charge under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown had previously indicated it would call four witnesses but at trial advised it would only call two witnesses—one police officer and one civilian witness who had not been served with a summons.

The Crown had made limited efforts to contact the civilian witness only within the three weeks prior to trial.

The defence opposed the adjournment, arguing it was ready to proceed and had relied on the Crown's representation regarding the number of witnesses.

The court denied the adjournment motion, finding the Crown had failed to demonstrate reasonable efforts to secure witness attendance and that granting the adjournment would disrespect the resources committed to trial preparation.

The plaintiff, a land developer, brought a motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) over one of the defendant's properties, 5318 Stouffville Road, based on a right of first refusal (ROFR) in a development management agreement.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing the ROFR had terminated, was void for vagueness, or was not triggered as the property was part of a larger package.

The court found that while the plaintiff raised a triable issue regarding the ROFR, it failed to demonstrate the uniqueness of the land or that damages would be an inadequate remedy.

Considering the defendant's advanced age and reliance on the property for retirement, the court concluded that the harm to the defendant from a CPL outweighed the harm to the plaintiff, whose losses could be compensated by damages.

The motion for leave to issue a CPL was dismissed.

The defendants brought motions for security for costs against the plaintiffs in a 12-year-old action regarding water damage to commercial premises.

The court previously found the plaintiffs failed to prove impecuniosity.

The plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence demonstrating a good chance of success against any of the defendants on liability or damages, particularly given a $250,000 advance payment already made.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to post security for costs in tranches for each of the moving defendants, totaling $530,000 for the first tranche.

The moving party sought an order validating late service of a statement of claim and extending time for service after the claim was served more than two years after issuance and beyond the six‑month service period under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court considered the factors governing extensions of time and validation of service, including length of delay, explanation for delay, and prejudice to the responding party.

The claim had been issued after the expiry of the limitation period and the moving party failed to provide a coherent explanation for the delay or evidence supporting discoverability.

The court found extensive and unexplained delays attributable to counsel, inadequate efforts to locate and serve the defendant, and significant prejudice to the defence including loss of opportunities for surveillance, medical assessments, and vocational evaluation.

The motion to validate service and extend time was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion seeking an order that four co‑plaintiffs be examined for discovery separately and excluded from one another’s examinations.

The plaintiffs alleged detrimental reliance on representations regarding executive retirement benefits and opposed the exclusion order.

The court applied the lighter onus for exclusion of co‑parties at discovery articulated in Sissons v. Olson and subsequent Ontario authorities.

Given that the plaintiffs shared a common interest, would be asked substantially similar questions, and credibility could become an issue regarding representations and reliance, the potential for tailoring evidence justified exclusion.

The motion was granted and an order was made prohibiting disclosure of discovery questions, answers, or transcripts among the plaintiffs until all examinations were completed.