Calum MacLeod

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend its statement of claim regarding a disputed gas supply contract, seeking to withdraw an allegation of forgery and instead plead misrepresentation and deceit.

The defendant opposed the amendment, arguing it raised a new cause of action that was statute-barred.

The court granted leave to amend, finding that the fundamental issue remained the validity of the contract and the amendment did not constitute a new cause of action.

The court also noted that for limitation purposes, a new claim is commenced when the motion to amend is brought.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change child support, seeking ongoing support for the parties' adult daughter attending college and retroactive support back to 2010.

The respondent father had unilaterally terminated support when the daughter finished high school and took a gap year.

The court held that the father had an ongoing obligation to pay table support while the daughter pursued her post-secondary education, excluding the gap year.

The court also ordered retroactive support for 2015-2017 based on the father's declared income, which was materially higher than the income used for the existing order.

The court declined to impute further income on the affidavit evidence, directing a trial of an issue if the mother wished to pursue further retroactive adjustments.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for partial summary judgment on the eve of trial, seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and should be placed in extended care, leaving the issue of the mother's access for trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that partial summary judgment would not shorten the trial significantly, risked inconsistent findings of fact, and raised fairness concerns given the mother's recent retention of new counsel and evidentiary issues.

The matter was ordered to proceed to a full trial on all issues.

The plaintiff contractor brought a motion for summary judgment for unpaid invoices and breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act.

The corporate defendant conceded liability for the invoices.

The issue was whether the individual defendant, the sole directing mind of the corporation, was personally liable for breach of trust under s. 13.

The plaintiff argued that the corporation's rental income used to self-finance the improvements constituted a trust fund under s. 7(1).

The court dismissed the motion against the individual defendant, holding that s. 7(1) requires a distinct fund specifically earmarked for financing the construction, and general revenues do not qualify.

The plaintiff obtained a net jury verdict of $5,760.00 following a four-week trial for a motor vehicle accident.

The defendants had made three offers to settle, the last being $250,000.00 plus costs, which was compliant with Rule 49.10.

The court considered the offers to settle and the factors under Rule 57.01.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants $70,000.00 in partial indemnity costs, noting that the plaintiff would have been better off accepting any of the defendants' offers.

The moving party sought to re-open a previously dismissed motion by introducing fresh evidence of alleged mortgage fraud, and also brought an unscheduled disclosure motion.

The court dismissed the motion to re-open, finding the proposed evidence did not meet the Palmer test as it could have been discovered with due diligence and would not have changed the outcome.

The court declined to hear the unscheduled disclosure motion.

Costs of $5,500 were awarded to the responding party.

The court adjourned the issue of whether the moving party's counsel should be personally liable for costs under Rule 24(9) to allow counsel to obtain independent legal advice.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for assault causing bodily harm and uttering death threats against his wife.

He argued that the trial judge erred in her credibility analysis by compartmentalizing the evidence and applying uneven scrutiny to his testimony compared to the complainant's.

The Superior Court of Justice found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of credibility or application of the W.(D.) framework.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Following a jury verdict in a motor vehicle accident trial, the court determined the application of statutory deductibles and collateral benefits to the damages awarded.

The jury awarded $42,250 for general damages and $76,121 for past loss of income.

Applying binding appellate authority, the court applied the 2015 statutory deductible to the general damages, reducing the net award to $4,266.67, plus pre-judgment interest.

The court also deducted collateral benefits, including accident benefits and long-term disability settlements, from the past loss of income award, reducing it to zero.

The plaintiff was awarded a total judgment of $5,760.

Following a motion for interim spousal support where the applicant was successful, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The court noted that the respondent unnecessarily complicated the proceedings by conducting a forensic audit of the applicant's finances, which drove up costs.

Although the respondent had made offers to settle, they included conditions the applicant could not accept.

The court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $85,000.

The plaintiff contractor sued to enforce a construction lien after abandoning a home renovation project.

The defendant homeowners counterclaimed for breach of contract, negligence, and misrepresentation, seeking damages for the cost of completing the work and repairing deficiencies.

The court found that the contractor fundamentally breached the contract by abandoning the job and failing to deliver the promised quality of work.

The homeowners' claim for pre-contract misrepresentation was dismissed as unproven and redundant.

The court assessed the cost of completion and repair, offset it against the unpaid balance of the adjusted contract price, and awarded the homeowners $64,607.83 on their counterclaim.

The contractor's lien was ordered vacated.

The respondent lawyer brought a motion to oppose confirmation of an assessment officer's certificate, which ordered him to refund $13,308.55 to his former clients.

The clients had retained the lawyer under a block fee agreement but terminated the retainer before trial.

The assessment officer reduced the lawyer's final account and deducted the full amount of the original retainer paid.

The court found no procedural unfairness in the assessment hearing but held that the assessment officer erred in principle by applying the full original retainer against the final account, as an earlier interim account had not been referred for assessment.

The court substituted an order requiring the lawyer to refund $6,947.04.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after a tumultuous relationship.

Following separation, the respondent engaged in a campaign of criminal harassment against the applicant, resulting in a criminal conviction, probation, and supervised access.

At trial, the court considered whether to loosen access restrictions.

The court granted the applicant sole custody and ordered a phased expansion of the respondent's access, subject to strict conditions including anger management and drug/alcohol assessments.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay ongoing child support of $776.80 per month and maintained his existing arrears.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary custody, access, child support, and spousal support.

The parties disputed the respondent's income from his self-employed hair salon business and whether he should have overnight access given allegations of substance abuse.

The court granted the applicant primary care and control of the children and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The respondent was granted conditional access, including overnights, provided he abstains from alcohol and drugs.

Due to insufficient financial disclosure, the court imputed the respondent's income at $100,000 and ordered interim child and spousal support accordingly.

The applicant tenant brought an urgent application under the Commercial Tenancies Act regarding a dispute over additional rent and a threatened eviction.

The court found the cited sections inapplicable but utilized the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure to avoid technical irregularities.

The court ordered the tenant to pay base rent plus an estimated amount for additional rent and arrears to avoid eviction, directed the landlord to provide an architect's certificate and actual figures, and converted the matter to a Rule 14 application.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support.

The respondent opposed, arguing the parties had reached an agreement to waive support in exchange for 49.9% of his successful software company.

The court found the applicant had a prima facie claim for support, as the alleged agreement was unlikely to meet the Miglin threshold.

To address the respondent's temporarily reduced income and the ongoing litigation costs, the court ordered the respondent to release undisputed corporate dividends and pay $300,000 in lump sum interim spousal support.

The accused, facing drug charges following a vehicle search, brought an application for the disclosure of police GPS tracking data to challenge the arresting officers' version of events and support a Charter claim of unreasonable search.

The court held that police GPS data, while not gathered primarily as an investigative tool, relates to the investigation and falls under the Crown's first-party disclosure obligations under Stinchcombe rather than the third-party O'Connor regime.

Finding the data relevant to the accused's defence, the court ordered its production but narrowed the temporal scope of the request.

The appellant appealed his convictions for theft under, mischief, and breach of an undertaking.

At trial, the appellant had admitted the facts alleged by the Crown, which involved taking a portable hunt camp and posting no trespassing signs on Crown land in breach of a probation order.

On appeal, the appellant argued the elements of the offences had not been proven.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the admitted facts conclusively proved the elements of the offences and the appellant could not resile from his admissions.

The parties separated after a 14-year marriage.

At trial, the court resolved outstanding financial issues including child support, spousal support, and equalization.

The court imputed income to the applicant wife for support purposes, finding she was underemployed in her home daycare business.

The court ordered the respondent husband to pay an equalization payment of $114,721.91, to be satisfied by a lump sum transfer from his pension, grossed up by 20% to account for future tax liabilities.

The court also ordered the transfer of a vehicle to the applicant to satisfy outstanding arrears and costs from a temporary order.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment on a defaulted mortgage over the defendants' property in Tweed, Ontario.

The self-represented defendants argued the motion should have been brought in Belleville, but the court allowed it to proceed in Ottawa.

The court found no genuine issue regarding the default and granted summary judgment for the principal amount of $194,253.85, with a reference ordered to determine the exact final amount including interest and costs.

Judgment for possession was also granted but stayed for 30 days.

The applicant father brought a motion to change seeking an increase in child support, while the respondent mother sought to terminate support for their two adult children pursuing master's and PhD degrees.

The court held that given the family's high income and academic expectations, the children remained dependents entitled to support.

However, the court ruled that once a child moves away from home, monthly support should be reduced and all living expenses treated as extraordinary expenses, offset by the child's own resources.

The court also applied a three-year average to the mother's fluctuating professional income.