Carolyn J. Horkins

The applicant mother sought costs following a successful trial where she obtained sole custody, supervised access, and a higher imputed income for the respondent father, exceeding her offer to settle.

The respondent father had engaged in bad faith conduct throughout the application, including refusing to comply with Family Law Rules and court orders, claiming to be a "sovereign" and failing to provide financial disclosure.

The court found the applicant was entitled to full recovery costs due to beating her offer to settle and the respondent's bad faith conduct, fixing costs at $36,122.72.

The mother appealed a trial judge's finding that her child was in need of protection due to a risk of sexual abuse or exploitation.

The risk stemmed from the mother's brother, who lived in the home and was convicted of luring and child pornography offences involving his students.

The mother argued the trial judge erred by making the finding without expert evidence, by rejecting an expert report filed on consent, and by not requiring the risk to be present at the time of the hearing.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and upholding the flexible approach to the timing of risk in child protection matters.

The applicant, Galo Angulo, brought a motion to change a 2004 final order requiring him to pay spousal support, seeking termination of support and life insurance obligations due to his retirement.

The respondent, Shirley Angulo, brought a cross-motion seeking extensive financial disclosure, retroactive spousal support arrears, and an increase in ongoing spousal support, alleging Galo retired to evade payments.

The court found Galo's retirement at age 68, with outdated skills and health issues, constituted a reasonable material change in circumstances.

The court denied Shirley's requests for disclosure and retroactive arrears, finding her claims speculative and her delay in seeking arrears unconvincing.

The court emphasized the parties' separation agreement clause requiring them to rely on their capital for support in retirement.

Spousal support and the life insurance obligation were terminated effective April 30, 2019.

The College of Veterinarians appealed a decision of its Discipline Committee excluding evidence against a veterinarian accused of possessing child pornography.

The evidence was obtained by police during a criminal investigation that was later withdrawn due to a conceded s. 8 Charter breach.

The Discipline Committee excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, relying on a case (Viscomi) to find the police search warrant application was materially misleading.

The Divisional Court held that the Committee's reliance on Viscomi was wrong in law, rendering its s. 24(2) Grant analysis unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

Bell Canada brought an application for judicial review to set aside an arbitrator's award finding that Bell violated a collective agreement by outsourcing work, resulting in the loss of 31 jobs.

The arbitrator had determined that the affected employees, who were transferred from a wholly owned subsidiary following a single employer declaration under the Canada Labour Code, were entitled to outsourcing protection under a Memorandum of Agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreements and the remedial nature of the single employer declaration to be justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The appellant purchased a pharmacy business from the respondents and later sued for breach of warranty after a fertility clinic located in the same building closed.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding that the withheld information about the clinic's closure would not reasonably have deterred the appellant from completing the transaction given its limited financial impact.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in his interpretation of the commercial contract or his assessment of the evidence.

The mother sought sole custody, child support, and imputation of income against the father, who claimed to be a 'sovereign' and disputed the court's jurisdiction.

The father refused to participate meaningfully in the proceedings or provide financial disclosure.

The court granted the mother sole custody, noting the child's special needs and the father's sporadic, disruptive involvement.

The father was granted supervised access subject to strict conditions.

Due to his failure to provide income information, the court imputed the father's income at $250,000 based on his business interests and a previous child support order, ordering him to pay ongoing and retroactive child support.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that ordered it to return all tenant deposits for garage door fobs to the respondent landlord based on unjust enrichment, and set off that amount against unpaid monthly fees owed to the appellant.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the trial judge erred in applying unjust enrichment because the tripartite agreement provided a juristic reason for the appellant to retain the deposits.

The court also corrected an error in the calculation of pre-judgment interest on the unpaid monthly fees, resulting in a net judgment in favour of the appellant.

The parties sought a consent order regarding funds paid into court to vacate a construction lien claim.

The Divisional Court granted the order, directing that $17,056.00 be paid out to the respondent in full satisfaction of the Master's Report and all subsequent proceedings, with the balance and accrued interest paid to the appellant.

The applicant, an icewine producer, challenged the validity of rules, by-laws, and regulations under the Vintners Quality Alliance Act, 1999, after its membership in the VQAO was terminated and approvals for its wines were revoked.

The applicant argued that the VQAO's taste test requirement and membership rules were ultra vires, and that the provincial scheme conflicted with its rights under the federal Trade-marks Act and Canada Agricultural Products Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the VQAO's rules and by-laws were reasonable and properly enacted, the new regulation was intra vires, and there was no operational conflict or frustration of purpose invoking the doctrine of federal paramountcy.

The self-represented appellant appealed a jury verdict awarding him $3,000 for pain and suffering following a motor vehicle accident.

He argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on temporal causation, deprived him of a fair trial, and erred by failing to determine the statutory threshold impairment issue.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the jury charge was appropriate and the damages award was supported by evidence.

Although the trial judge erred in law by refusing to decide the threshold issue on the basis of mootness, the court found no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred to warrant a new trial.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Law Society's refusal to investigate his complaint against a lawyer who had acted for the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The Law Society closed the file at the intake stage, concluding the complaint raised a legal issue regarding privilege rather than professional misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Complaints Resolution Commissioner correctly concluded he had no jurisdiction to review the matter because the merits of the complaint had not been considered by the Law Society.

The court also held that the Assistant Manager had jurisdiction to review the intake decision based on the Law Society's statutory mandate.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Motions Judge that refused to confirm a Master's report regarding a construction contract dispute.

The Master had found an oral contract existed for construction costs but rejected the respondent's claim for a 20% management fee.

The Motions Judge set aside the report, finding no contract existed, and awarded the respondent the management fee on a quantum meruit basis.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Motions Judge erred in law by treating the motion as a de novo hearing and failing to defer to the Master's factual findings.

The Master's report was confirmed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding them liable for sex discrimination, a poisoned work environment, and reprisal.

The Tribunal had awarded the respondent $30,000 in general damages after she was terminated for complaining about sexualized comments and conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicator's factual findings, damages award, and treatment of the incidents as a continuous series were reasonable.

The court also rejected the argument that the adjudicator's partial reproduction of the respondent's submissions compromised his independence.

The appellant general contractor appealed from summary judgments granted to two sub-subcontractors in a consolidated construction lien action.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by granting judgment without evidence of the value of the work done by the subcontractor, misinterpreting the holdback provisions of the Construction Lien Act, and improperly placing the evidentiary burden on the appellant to establish the quantum of its liability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the liens were not restricted to the basic holdback and that the appellant failed to provide evidence of the amount it owed to the subcontractor, which was a fact within its knowledge.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate decision confirming an Arbitrator's finding that he was not catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Arbitrator erred in law by relying on surveillance evidence, the applicant's presentation at the hearing, and a psychiatrist's report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the issues raised were questions of fact and the weighing of evidence, not errors of law, and that the Director's Delegate's decision was reasonable.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy and ordering his eviction.

The appellant had been employed as a live-in superintendent, and his employment was terminated upon the sale of the building.

The Board found that under section 93 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, the tenancy terminated with the employment, as there was no agreement otherwise.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the issues raised by the appellant regarding the existence of a new tenancy agreement and the interpretation of the employment contract were questions of mixed fact and law, which are not reviewable on an appeal restricted to questions of law.

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) brought a motion for security for costs against the appellants, who were appealing a merits and sanctions decision that found they orchestrated a massive fraud at Sino-Forest Corporation.

The OSC sought $100,000 in security, arguing the appeal was frivolous and vexatious and the appellants lacked assets in Ontario.

The Divisional Court found that while the appeal did not appear vexatious, the grounds of appeal appeared frivolous.

Furthermore, the court found 'other good reason' to order security under Rule 61.06(1)(c) due to the strong findings of fraud and evidence that the appellants had put assets out of reach.

Applying a holistic approach, the court concluded it was just to order the appellants to post $100,000 as security for costs.

The appellant municipality appealed a summary judgment order that quashed a by-law directing the deduction of $5,434.21 from the respondent former councillor's severance pay.

The municipality argued the motion judge failed to consider its limitation period defence and erred in finding bad faith.

The Divisional Court held that the amended statement of claim did not raise a new cause of action, meaning the claim was not statute-barred.

The court upheld the finding of bad faith, noting the by-law was a 'one-shot reimbursement device' enacted without notice.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to quash only the specific section of the by-law directed at the respondent, rather than the entire by-law.

The appellant trucking company brought a motion for a stay of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision confirming the cancellation of its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate pending appeal.

The cancellation was based on a poor safety record, including multiple out-of-service defects and convictions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the appellant failed to prove irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured public safety over the appellant's pecuniary interests.