Cory A. Gilmore

The appellant employer lost a contract to provide rehabilitation services at a hospital to a competitor.

The appellant terminated its employees, who were subsequently hired by the competitor without recognition of past service.

The appellant argued that a 'sale of a business' occurred under s. 9 of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, relieving it of the obligation to provide termination and severance pay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Small Claims Court finding that no sale or transfer occurred, as no assets were transferred and there was no commercial connection between the competitors.

The parties separated after 11 years of marriage and disputed custody, access, and support for their 11-year-old child.

The mother sought sole custody, alleging the father was controlling, undermined her parenting, and alienated the child.

The father sought joint custody and a continuation of the shared parenting schedule.

The court adopted the section 30 assessor's recommendation to grant the mother sole custody due to the parents' inability to communicate effectively and the father's contemptuous behaviour.

A week-about shared parenting schedule was ordered to minimize transitions and conflict.

The court imputed income to the retired father based on his capital assets and dismissed his claim for spousal support, ordering no child support due to the parties' similar incomes.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on charges of impaired operation of a motor vehicle and driving over 80.

The appeal judge found that the trial judge erred by applying the wrong test for reasonable suspicion to demand a roadside screening test, misapprehending the evidence regarding the respondent's right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter, and failing to conduct a proper s. 24(2) analysis.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

Following an eight-year separation, the parties were unable to resolve the division of their personal property and affinity points despite a separation agreement.

The respondent brought a motion for the return of items, which was converted into a short trial.

The court found the applicant to be an evasive witness who deliberately failed to comply with the agreement and court orders, particularly regarding Aeroplan points.

The court divided the disputed chattels item by item, set off the value of the Aeroplan points against amounts owed by the respondent, and awarded $20,000 in costs to the respondent due to the applicant's unreasonable conduct.

On a family law appeal from a motion to change, the court considered retroactive child support and s. 7 expenses for children who were adults by the time the responding claim was advanced.

The court held that jurisdiction existed to determine retroactive support despite the children no longer being dependants, but found the motion judge erred in finding blameworthy conduct and in selecting an unsupported retroactive start date.

Applying the retroactive support framework, the court fixed June 6, 2014 as the earliest permissible notice date and limited recovery accordingly.

Most claimed s. 7 expenses were disallowed, with only the appellant’s proportionate share of one child’s 2014 and 2015 tuition remaining payable.

The reasonable apprehension of bias ground failed, and appeal costs were awarded to the appellant.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a $250 costs order made by a Deputy Judge in Small Claims Court.

The Divisional Court initially granted leave, finding the Deputy Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering costs above the $100 maximum without giving reasons for special circumstances.

However, upon reviewing recent jurisprudence, the court determined it lacked jurisdiction to grant leave because the costs order was less than $2,500.

The initial order was set aside and leave to appeal was denied.

The applicant wife sought a divorce, child support, and section 7 expenses, while the respondent husband sought retroactive and ongoing spousal support.

Both parties sought to impute income to the other.

The court imputed income to the wife by adding back a portion of her business deductions for personal expenses, and imputed income of $48,000 per year to the husband due to underemployment.

The court found the husband entitled to non-compensatory spousal support for a 10-year duration.

Given the husband's failure to pay child support and section 7 expenses, the court ordered a lump sum spousal support payment to the husband, which was entirely set off against the retroactive child support, section 7 expenses, and equalization payment he owed the wife.

The husband was also ordered to transfer his interest in a jointly-owned cottage to the wife in lieu of future child support.

The father appealed a trial judgment granting sole custody to the mother with minimal access to the father.

Following the trial, the order was stayed, and the parties reverted to a shared parenting arrangement.

Fresh evidence, including multiple updated Office of the Children's Lawyer reports, demonstrated that the parties' communication had significantly improved following counseling and that the child strongly preferred spending equal time with both parents.

The court set aside the trial judgment, finding it was no longer in the child's best interests, and ordered joint custody with a shared parenting schedule.

The appellant mother sought leave to late file and serve a Notice of Appeal regarding a judgment that significantly expanded the respondent father's access to their child.

The court applied the Kefeli test for extending the time to appeal and found that the appellant's delay lacked a valid explanation.

Furthermore, the court determined the appeal lacked merit, as the trial judge had made clear credibility findings against the appellant and found her actions interfered with the father-child relationship.

The motion was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay $4,000 in costs.

The parties disputed the date of separation and the equalization of net family property following their marriage breakdown.

The applicant claimed a separation date of September 2015, while the respondent claimed May 2015 when he discovered the applicant's extra-marital affair.

The court found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and accepted the respondent's separation date of May 20, 2015.

The court also found the respondent had a 50% beneficial interest in a condominium in Taiwan registered in the applicant's name, applying the presumption of resulting trust.

However, the court accepted that a $400,000 payment to the applicant's father from the sale of a property was a valid debt deduction for the applicant.

The applicant was ordered to pay an equalization payment and a share of post-separation property expenses.

The applicant moved to enforce a term of a separation agreement allowing her to discharge a mortgage on her home at two-thirds of its face value.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought to set aside the agreement entirely, alleging the applicant had fundamentally breached multiple terms regarding access, child support enforcement, and mediation.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that significant factual disputes existed regarding the alleged breaches, making it inappropriate to enforce the settlement on a summary motion.

The respondent was ordered to continue paying child support while pursuing his application to set aside the agreement.

The mother sought sole custody of the parties' two children, alleging severe parental alienation by the father.

The father also sought sole custody.

The court found that the father had engaged in a campaign of denigration against the mother, inappropriately involved the children in adult financial disputes, and empowered the children to disrespect and reject their mother.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother and suspended the father's access pending his completion of the first phase of intensive therapy, finding that the father's alienating behaviour was severely detrimental to the children's best interests.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging he was assaulted by police detectives after his arrest for armed robbery.

The accused claimed the officers beat him in an unmonitored interview room to extract a confession, washed his blood-stained shirt to conceal the assault, and deliberately conducted his videotaped interview with his back to the camera.

The court found the accused's evidence credible and concluded that the officers had indeed assaulted him and attempted to cover it up.

The court held that the police misconduct was so offensive to societal notions of fair play and decency that it fell into the residual category of abuse of process.

The application was granted and the proceedings were stayed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to correct an alleged accidental slip in a trial judgment, to vary the decision based on fraud and fresh evidence, and to stay the execution of costs orders made by the Court of Appeal.

The trial judgment in question had previously been vacated by the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the plaintiff's action and granted the defendant's counterclaim for defamation.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to vary a vacated judgment.

In the alternative, the court held that the fresh evidence regarding a non-testifying expert was irrelevant, the accidental slip argument was groundless, and the test for a stay of execution was not met.

Sentencing decision following jury convictions for prostitution-related offences and assault arising from the accused's grooming of an adult complainant through an intimate relationship and exploiting her in the sex trade.

The court held denunciation and deterrence were the dominant sentencing principles, but distinguished authorities involving minors, prolonged coercion, or more complete domination.

Applying the factual findings that the complainant retained some autonomy, was not generally acting out of fear during the relationship, and that the exploitation was serious but not at the highest end, the court imposed 20 months' incarceration on the principal prostitution counts, concurrent, and a concurrent two-month sentence for assault.

The court stayed one count under the Kienapple principle, denied any credit for restrictive bail, and imposed ancillary DNA, weapons prohibition, no-contact, and probation orders.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order to permit her to move with the parties' four-year-old child from Toronto to Belleville.

The mother sought the move due to the high cost of housing in Toronto and her desire to provide the child with a larger home and his own bedroom.

The respondent father opposed the move, arguing it would negatively impact his access.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined the move was in the child's best interests, noting the mother's willingness to facilitate access by sharing the driving.

The court also ordered the father to pay arrears for section 7 expenses and imputed his income at $110,000 for child support purposes.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which summarily dismissed his discrimination complaint against the respondent housing corporation regarding his eviction for rent arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it to be an abuse of process as the applicant sought to relitigate his employment termination and eviction, which had already been settled or decided.

The court held that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable, procedurally fair, and entitled to deference.

The applicant was ordered to pay costs of $2,644.55 and barred from bringing further applications without paying outstanding costs and obtaining leave.

The respondent, Dikran Hekimian, moved to set aside a default order that transferred his interest in the matrimonial home to the deceased applicant, Silva Sogomonian.

The applicant's Estate Trustee, Anahit Sogomonian, opposed the motion.

The court applied the five-factor test from *Intact Insurance Company v. Kisel* for setting aside default judgments.

While the motion was brought promptly, the respondent's explanation for default was not plausible, and his arguable defence on the merits was weak due to lack of evidence.

The court found that the prejudice to the Estate, particularly due to the corroboration requirement under s.13 of the *Ontario Evidence Act*, far outweighed the prejudice to the respondent.

The motion was dismissed.

The Attorney General appealed a decision ordering the full forfeiture of $29,900 in seized cash under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, despite the parties reaching a settlement to return $4,000 to the claimant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that proceedings under the Act are in rem and affect the world at large, meaning the court cannot simply rubber-stamp a settlement.

Because the cash was found to be proceeds of unlawful activity and there was no evidence establishing the claimant as the legitimate owner, mandatory forfeiture of the entire amount was required under section 3(1) of the Act.

The applicant, a paediatrician facing allegations of sexual abuse of a minor patient, applied for judicial review of an interim order by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

The order imposed practice restrictions, including requiring a dedicated practice monitor and direct notification to patients of the restrictions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC's decision was reasonable and based on some evidence of potential harm to patients, given the serious nature of the allegations and the committee's mandate to protect the public.