Cory A. Gilmore

A commercial tenant, Baketree Inc., brought a motion for a prohibitory injunction to prevent its landlord, 315-345 Flint Road Inc., from evicting it from the leased premises.

Baketree's lease had expired, and the property had been sold to the new landlord, Flint.

Baketree sought a temporary extension to allow it sufficient time to find new premises, renovate, and relocate its extensive bakery operations, arguing that immediate eviction would lead to the collapse of its business and the loss of 100 jobs.

Flint opposed, citing an Estoppel Certificate and "Entire Agreement" clauses, and offered a short extension until February 2020.

The court granted the prohibitory injunction, finding that Baketree met the low threshold for such an injunction, demonstrated irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured a temporary stay.

The court ordered Baketree to vacate by October 31, 2020, and adjusted the rent payments for the interim period.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, a change in the residential schedule, and section 7 expenses in an uncontested trial after the respondent father failed to file pleadings.

The court found that the father's hostility and refusal to collaborate made co-parenting impossible, granting the mother sole custody and adjusting the parenting schedule in the children's best interests.

Although the mother did not seek child support out of fear of the father's reaction, the court ordered the father to pay presumptive child support under section 3 of the Child Support Guidelines, along with his proportionate share of retroactive and ongoing section 7 expenses.

The respondent mother brought a motion for temporary sole custody, ongoing and retroactive child support, and an order dispensing with the father's consent for passports.

The father sought joint custody and claimed undue hardship to pay less than Table support.

The court granted the mother temporary sole custody, noting the parties' inability to communicate precluded joint custody.

The court ordered the father to pay retroactive and ongoing Table support, and directed that 24 months of future support be prepaid from his share of the matrimonial home sale proceeds as security.

The applicant father brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole custody of the parties' 13-year-old child, child support, and an order striking the respondent mother's pleadings.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking joint custody and increased parenting time.

The court dismissed the father's motion for contempt and to strike pleadings, finding no pattern of deception and noting the mother's offer to secure support arrears against her property.

The court also dismissed the father's motion for summary judgment, concluding that genuine issues for trial existed regarding the child's views and preferences and the appropriate parenting schedule.

The mother's cross-motion was granted in part, establishing a specified parenting schedule and securing her arrears against her property.

The applicant brought a motion to compel the respondent to answer undertakings and produce documents, including unredacted files from third-party lenders and a real estate file over which solicitor-client privilege was claimed.

The court found the respondent had not made sufficient efforts to comply with her undertakings and ordered her to write directly to the third parties for unredacted files.

The court also ordered the allegedly privileged emails to be produced for a privilege review process.

Costs of $7,500 were awarded to the applicant.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased access to the parties' child pending the completion of a section 30 assessment.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, relying on a previous consent order that maintained the current schedule until the assessment was completed, and citing concerns about the father's past alcohol use.

The court found that while the father had addressed the alcohol concerns, a significant change to the schedule was not warranted before the assessment.

However, the court partially granted the motion by modifying the access schedule to reduce the number of transitions, which was deemed to be in the child's best interests.

The applicant mother brought a motion to dispense with the respondent father's consent for international travel to New Zealand with their children for a funeral.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking conditions for the travel and an order for their eldest child to continue at Mildenhall Montessori School, with tuition costs to be considered a section 7 expense.

The court granted the mother's motion to dispense with consent without conditions, dismissing the father's requested terms.

The court ordered the eldest child to continue at Mildenhall for the 2019/20 academic year, with the father solely responsible for the tuition, and adjourned the determination of whether tuition is a section 7 expense to trial.

The case was designated for case management by Justice Gilmore due to high conflict.

The applicant father brought motions to enforce a 2016 Offer to Settle for shared parenting and to strike certain paragraphs and exhibits from the respondent mother's affidavit, alleging breaches of confidentiality provisions under the Child and Family Services Act and a prior court order.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to permit the use of those documents and sought a s.30 assessment or, alternatively, the appointment of private counsel for the children.

The court dismissed the father's motion to enforce the Offer to Settle, finding it unreasonable given the children's changed circumstances and the high parental conflict.

The father's motion to strike the confidential material from the mother's affidavit was granted for the purpose of the current motion, but access to the protection file for trial was preserved.

The mother's motion for a s.30 assessment was dismissed, but her request for the appointment of private counsel for the children was granted, with costs to be shared by the parties.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child support, seeking imputation of $200,000 income to the respondent, increased life insurance, disclosure orders, and costs.

The respondent, claiming unemployment and disability, opposed the imputation and other requests.

The court imputed an income of $74,977 to the respondent, ordered child support of $700 per month, and a 67/33 split for section 7 expenses.

The existing $100,000 life insurance policy was maintained, and the respondent was ordered to provide outstanding disclosure.

Costs for previous conferences were fixed at $10,000, to be apportioned by the trial judge, and the applicant was awarded $5,000 in costs for the motion.

The respondent father brought a motion for access to his 19-month-old daughter, EFN.

The applicant mother opposed, seeking supervised access at a supervised access centre and imposing several conditions, including a mental health assessment for the father.

The court granted the father's motion for supervised access, initially by a private agency and then by the paternal grandmother, to take place at the father's home.

Most of the mother's requested conditions were dismissed as unreasonable.

The court found the mother's approach unreasonable and her views on the father's culture racist, ordering her to pay costs to the father.

The appellant mother, A.T., brought a motion to extend the time for filing an appeal against protection orders issued by the trial judge concerning her two children, A.T-W. and N.T. The trial judge had found the children in need of protection due to the mother's unfounded allegations of sexual abuse, mental health issues, and breaches of a supervision order, placing them with their respective fathers.

The motion judge applied the four-factor test for extending time for appeal: reasonable explanation for delay, prejudice to the respondent, merits of the appeal, and the justice of the case, with the children's best interests being paramount.

While the mother provided a reasonable explanation for the delay as a self-represented litigant dealing with a two-part judgment, the court found the appeal lacked merit and that allowing it would cause prejudice to the respondents and be contrary to the children's best interests by prolonging litigation.

The motion to extend time was dismissed.

Following a 14-day family law trial, the self-represented respondent sought costs on a near full recovery scale.

The court found the respondent was entirely successful on major issues and had made multiple reasonable offers to settle, which the applicant failed to beat.

The court noted the applicant's appalling behaviour at trial, unreasonable positions, and failure to make any formal offers to settle.

The respondent was awarded $200,000 in costs, which included compensation for his own time and his assistant's time.

The final amount payable by the applicant was reduced to $138,075 after setting off future periodic and compensatory spousal support obligations.

The applicant sought child support for two children and interim disbursements for legal fees.

The respondent opposed, arguing that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction due to ongoing litigation in Pakistan and Malaysia, and that he was already providing sufficient support.

The court found that it had jurisdiction based on a prior order and that there was no reason to defer the issues.

The court ordered the respondent to pay temporary child support for one child and interim disbursements to the applicant to level the playing field, noting the respondent's significant income and control over assets.

Costs were awarded to the applicant due to her overall success and the respondent's unreasonable approach.

This ruling addresses a mother's cross-motion for child support and arrears, and the determination of the father's income for support purposes.

The court established the father's 2017 income at $160,752 by adding back 50% of grossed-up dividend income and specific business expenses.

The court declined to set aside the parties' partial parenting agreement regarding child support calculation stages without a full trial, emphasizing the need to assess the agreement's context and actual parenting time.

Arrears for child support and Section 7 expenses were calculated, with the father owing $2,502.29, subject to further adjustments.

The applicant sought divorce, equalization of net family property, and costs.

The respondent failed to participate in the proceedings despite multiple court orders and opportunities, leading to an uncontested trial.

The court accepted the applicant's evidence regarding assets, debts, and the value of the respondent's pension, ordering an equalization payment of $51,108.38 to be transferred from the respondent's locked-in RSP, repayment of $600 for specific debts, and costs of $5,150 to the applicant.

A divorce was also granted.

The applicant brought a motion seeking leave to amend his application, orders compelling the respondent to answer refusals and undertakings, to strike certain paragraphs from the respondent's affidavit, and to provide medical information for the parties' child.

The applicant also sought to expand his access to the child to include one overnight per month.

The respondent consented to the application amendment and some production.

The court granted the applicant's requests for expanded overnight access, full medical information for the child, and struck inflammatory paragraphs from the respondent's affidavit.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The respondent mother brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, disclosure, and contribution to Section 7 expenses.

The court ruled that temporary support should be based on the applicant father's current annual draw income, with additional firm equity distributions to be shared as lump sums when received, rather than on his higher historical average income.

Disclosure was ordered from the father's date of separation (2014) forward.

The applicant father was largely successful on the support and disclosure issues, and costs were awarded in his favour.

The applicant father sought an order for the parties' two children to attend Rosedale Day School (RDS) or Maurice Cody Junior Public School, while the respondent mother cross-moved for them to attend St. Brigid's Catholic School and for support orders.

The court focused on the school placement, finding that attending RDS was in the children's best interests, particularly for the older child with ADHD and giftedness, due to its enriched curriculum and smaller class sizes.

The father was ordered to pay tuition for the first two academic years, with a review thereafter.

Daycare arrangements were also addressed, with the younger child remaining at Purple Tree Nursery School and the mother having the option to place the older child in Child Space Daycare at her own expense on her days.

This case involved a motion to change a 2012 consent order concerning custody, access, child support, and international travel for a child with Cerebral Palsy.

The court found a material change in circumstances, noting the child's evolving needs, the primary caregiver's financial strain, and the parents' inability to co-parent effectively due to ongoing conflict.

The court granted sole custody to the primary caregiver, ordered supervised access for the other parent in Toronto, and permitted international travel to a non-Hague Convention country without a bond.

Retroactive and ongoing child support was ordered, and the other parent's counter-claims were dismissed.

Substantial costs were awarded against the non-compliant parent.

The applicant, a 76-year-old former lawyer, brought a motion for a provisional order to terminate spousal support and a temporary stay of enforcement pending a confirmation hearing in British Columbia.

The applicant had recently been diagnosed with dementia, forcing him to close his law practice and leaving him with nominal pension income.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the applicant's medical condition and inability to earn income, provisionally terminating spousal support.

The court also granted a temporary stay of enforcement, finding the applicant met the test by acting promptly and establishing a prima facie case for variation.