Cara Valiquette

The Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking protection findings and disposition orders for three children.

The eldest child, M.W.W., disclosed sexual abuse by her stepfather, C.M., who was a respondent and self-represented.

The motion addressed C.M.'s procedural challenges regarding the Society's affidavit of documents and the admissibility of M.W.W.'s hearsay evidence.

The court admitted the hearsay evidence under the R. v. Khan test, found M.W.W. in need of protection due to sexual abuse, and the younger children (M.M. and W.M.) at risk of sexual abuse.

Deemed custody was granted to the mother, with no parenting time for C.M. with M.W.W., and supervised parenting time with the younger children contingent on C.M. completing a sexual offender risk assessment.

The defendants brought a Rule 21 motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for theft and conversion as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff argued the limitation period was suspended until the conclusion of a related criminal investigation, believing a restitution order would be an appropriate remedy.

The court found that the plaintiff had actual or constructive knowledge of the material facts by July 2019.

It held that an ongoing criminal investigation or the mere prospect of a restitution order does not constitute an "appropriate means" to remedy a civil loss, nor does it suspend the limitation period, unless the civil claim is directly against the Crown or police.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim as out-of-time.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court decision concerning the enforceability of a non-competition covenant in an employment agreement.

The appellant employer sought to enforce the covenant against a former employee, a pharmacist, who left to work at a competing pharmacy.

The application judge found the covenant unenforceable due to ambiguity and overbreadth.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, affirming that the covenant's broad wording, which prohibited the employee from being "concerned with" or "interested in" any similar business, extended beyond what was reasonably required to protect the employer's legitimate interests.

The court reiterated that it cannot rewrite an unreasonable restrictive covenant.

This is an appeal concerning the application of limitation periods to tort claims, including sexual assault, against a police officer.

The motion judge had dismissed the appellant's motions to strike and for summary judgment, finding that the sexual assault allegations triggered s. 16(1)(h) of the Limitations Act, 2002, and that s. 16(1.3) extended this to related torts due to the officer's position of trust.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision regarding the application of s. 16(1.3) to claims against the perpetrator and related torts, but set aside the declaration that no limitation period applied to all claims, stating this ultimate determination should be left to the trial judge.

The appeal regarding costs was dismissed, affirming the motion judge's award.

The applicant pharmacy owner sought a declaration and injunction to enforce a non-competition clause against a former pharmacist employee who resigned and began working at a nearby pharmacy.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the non-competition clause was unenforceable because its description of prohibited activities was both ambiguous and overly broad, extending beyond what was reasonably necessary to protect the employer's proprietary interests.

The applicant First Nation sought a writ of possession to remove the respondents from a property it purchased on the reserve.

The respondents argued the applicant's lawyers were in a conflict of interest, that the dispute must be resolved under the First Nations Land Code, and that only the Federal Court had jurisdiction.

The Superior Court found no conflict of interest, held that the Land Code did not oust the court's jurisdiction, and confirmed the Superior Court has jurisdiction over the matter.

The court concluded the respondents were trespassers and granted the writ of possession.

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The appellant, Beth Ann Markowski, was ordered to pay the respondents, Dwayne David Verhey and Kathleen Anne Verhey, costs fixed at $15,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, following an appeal from a Superior Court of Justice order.

The plaintiffs and the defendant police officer provided written submissions on costs following the plaintiffs' successful motion for leave to amend their statement of claim.

The defendant argued the plaintiffs' submissions were late, but the court found them timely under the Rules of Civil Procedure as the deadline fell on a weekend.

Although the plaintiffs were successful on the motion, the court expressed concern over the timing of the new, more serious allegations of battery and sexual assault, which the defendant argued were an attempt to circumvent the Limitations Act.

Consequently, the court declined to award costs immediately to the successful plaintiffs, instead fixing costs at $6,500 payable in the cause.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to add causes of action for battery and sexual assault, and sought a publication ban to protect their identities.

The defendant police officer opposed the timing of the amendment, arguing his outstanding summary judgment motion should be heard first, and sought costs thrown away.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend immediately, finding no non-compensable prejudice, and ordered a publication ban due to the sexual nature of the allegations.

The court also awarded the defendant $2,000 in costs thrown away for the need to redraft his pleadings.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment, claiming constructive dismissal and seeking damages for the unexpired term of her fixed-term employment contract, plus punitive damages.

The court found that the plaintiff was constructively dismissed when the defendant placed her on an unauthorized, indefinite administrative suspension without pay, which constituted a fundamental breach of her employment contract.

The defendant's subsequent attempt to terminate for just cause was rejected as an impermissible retrospective dismissal based on pre-existing or discoverable grounds.

The court granted summary judgment for constructive dismissal and awarded damages for the unexpired contract term.

However, issues regarding the plaintiff's mitigation efforts and entitlement to punitive damages were deemed to require a mini-trial and a full trial, respectively, due to conflicting evidence.

Following a motion for spousal support where the applicant was successful, both parties sought costs.

The court reviewed the parties' respective offers to settle and conduct.

The court found the applicant was successful on the main issue of spousal support and that the respondent's offer to settle was not bettered.

Despite some unreasonable conduct by both parties, the applicant was awarded costs of $3,000 on a partial recovery basis.