Courtney Akinwale Kazembe

Following a successful summary judgment motion for payment of a real estate commission, the moving party sought costs.

The trustee opposed personal liability, arguing costs should be paid from funds held in court.

The investors argued the trustee should pay costs personally due to improper conduct.

The court ordered costs of $10,000 to be paid from the funds in court, as the moving party should not be prejudiced by the dispute between the trustee and investors, but without prejudice to the investors seeking recovery from the trustee in their ongoing litigation.

The mother brought a motion requesting that a previous costs order of $12,430 be defined as support so it could be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that its authority to direct legal fees to be enforced by FRO is limited to costs awards arising out of support decisions.

Because the underlying trial dealt exclusively with parenting issues and a restraining order, the court had no authority to grant the requested relief, though it outlined other enforcement options available to the mother.

Following a trial regarding parenting arrangements and a restraining order, both parties sought costs.

The court found the mother to be the more successful party overall, despite divided success on some issues.

However, the court found the mother acted in bad faith by deliberately withholding videotape evidence that contradicted her claims, which significantly reduced her costs entitlement.

The father's request for costs personally against the mother's counsel was dismissed, as counsel's actions amounted to poor judgment rather than deliberate obstruction.

The father was ordered to pay the mother's costs fixed at $12,430.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary his child support obligations, which was dismissed due to his deliberate failure to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The respondent mother sought her costs of the motion.

The court found that the applicant's persistent non-disclosure amounted to bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Consequently, the court awarded the respondent her costs on a full recovery basis, fixed at $16,525.29.

The applicant, acting as estate trustee, challenged the respondent's entitlement to $250,000 that the respondent withdrew from a joint bank account he held with the deceased.

The applicant argued the funds belonged to the estate based on the presumption of resulting trust.

The court found that the bank documents and corroborating evidence demonstrated the deceased's intention to gift the funds to the respondent through the right of survivorship.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent was entitled to retain the funds.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm following a single-car collision on Highway 401.

The accused, driving a friend's car, approached another vehicle at a high rate of speed and made a sudden lane change to avoid a collision, losing control and striking the guardrails.

The passenger suffered significant injuries including a broken kneecap and concussion.

The court rejected the accused's claim that the passenger grabbed the steering wheel.

Applying the modified objective test, the court found the accused's excessive speed and sudden lane change constituted a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable driver.

The accused was found guilty.

The parties sought a divorce and resolution of corollary issues including equalization of net family property, spousal support, and the partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The court determined the date of separation to be September 1, 2010, and calculated the equalization payment owed by the applicant to the respondent, which was adjusted to account for the applicant's sole payment of the mortgage since separation.

The court denied child support for the adult child, awarded a lump sum non-compensatory spousal support payment to the respondent due to his limited income-earning capacity from motor vehicle accidents, denied the applicant's request for exclusive possession, and ordered the partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The applicant mother sought an urgent temporary custody order after the respondent father refused to return their child to Ontario following an agreed-upon summer visit in Florida.

The father sent text messages indicating he had physically disciplined the child and intended to keep him in Florida permanently.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in Ontario under section 22 of the Children's Law Reform Act, giving the court jurisdiction to make an interim order.

The court granted temporary custody to the mother, finding it in the child's best interests to return to his established life in Ontario and away from the father's admitted physical abuse, pending a final determination under the Hague Convention in Florida.

This motion addressed a dispute arising from a 2014 settlement concerning the care and property management of an elderly woman, Deolinda De Melo, who was found incapable of managing her property due to Alzheimer's disease.

The applicant, Maria Melo-Avelino (daughter), sought to declare the settlement void or set it aside due to alleged breaches and to be appointed attorney under 2011 powers of attorney.

The respondent, Carlos De Melo (son), opposed this.

The court terminated the settlement agreement and the associated trust, revived a 2014 order directing the validity of competing powers of attorney to trial, and provided interim directions regarding property protection and access, while declining to require a formal accounting from Carlos at this stage.

The applicant, Wilcason Bullock, moved to vary a 2012 child support order, claiming reduced income and that his children were no longer "children of the marriage." The respondent, Michelle Bullock, moved to dismiss his variation motion due to his repeated breaches of multiple court orders, including non-payment of support arrears, non-payment of interest on costs, failure to provide proof of life insurance, and persistent financial non-disclosure.

The court found that the applicant deliberately breached these orders, which undermined the respondent's ability to respond to his motion and secure a fair determination of the issues.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion to vary, ordered him to redeem his RRSP to reduce arrears, and pay the respondent's costs.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 21.01(3)(d), and sought to prevent further actions without leave under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found the current action to be an attempt to relitigate issues previously decided by Perrell J. and upheld on appeal, applying the doctrine of res judicata.

The plaintiff's argument of new facts and legal theories was rejected, as the underlying factual basis was the same and could have been raised with reasonable diligence in the prior action.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding it frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and declined to exercise discretion to allow relitigation.

Following a successful application for rectification of the Land Titles Register to reflect a historical right-of-way, the applicant sought costs.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded because the registration omission resulted from an administrative error and because the applicant had not previously provided notice of reliance on the right-of-way registered under the Registry Act.

The court rejected these submissions and held that the successful party was entitled to its costs.

The applicant’s bill of costs was found to be fair and reasonable and was granted.

A cheque‑cashing company sought to recover losses arising from a fraudulent mortgage scheme and the negotiation of a bank draft bearing a forged endorsement.

The plaintiff alleged negligence and fraud against multiple parties involved in the mortgage transaction, including the property owner, a lawyer, a lender, and a relative of the homeowners.

The court found that the homeowners were not involved in the fraud and dismissed claims against them and other defendants, including the lawyer and lender.

The court declined to recognize a novel duty of care owed by the drawer of a bank draft to a subsequent negotiator and held that the plaintiff’s loss arose from the strict liability tort of conversion when the draft with a forged endorsement was negotiated.

Liability was established only against the relative who participated in the mortgage fraud.

This is a child protection trial concerning access to two Crown ward children (L., born 2004, and B., born 2006) following their apprehension in December 2009 and Crown wardship order in December 2011.

The mother sought increased access; the father sought bi-weekly eight-hour visits.

The Society opposed any access order, planning adoption.

The court found the children's relationship with their mother was beneficial and meaningful but that both parents failed to establish that an access order would not impair the children's future opportunities for adoption.

The mother's continued desire to have the children returned and lack of acceptance of adoption, combined with the father's inconsistent presence and mental health issues, led to the dismissal of both parents' access requests.