Courtney Akinwale Kazembe

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.

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.