Cynthia Lynn MacKenzie

The applicant mother brought a motion requesting the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) or a section 112 assessment for the child.

The respondent father brought cross-motions for security for costs and a mental health assessment of the applicant.

The court dismissed the request for OCL involvement, finding it would not be in the child's best interests and would draw her back into the parents' high-conflict dynamic.

The court also dismissed the request for a mental health assessment, finding insufficient evidence of a clinical issue impairing parenting capacity.

The court granted the respondent's motion for security for costs in part, ordering the applicant to post $8,700 (representing outstanding costs awards) within 60 days of the determination of her pending spousal support claim.

The appellant challenged an application judge's determination of liability and damages for failure to timely discharge a mortgage, which allegedly deprived the respondent of financing for a secondary property purchase.

The appeal raised four issues: causation (respondent's reliance on equity), remoteness (loss on secondary transaction), mitigation (promptness of court application), and date of damage assessment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the application judge's findings that the loss was foreseeable given the appellant's knowledge of the respondent's real estate business, that the respondent adequately mitigated, and that the date of assessment was appropriately chosen.

The applicant father sought a temporary order to vary a final parenting order, requesting a change in the children's primary residence from the respondent mother to himself.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer supported the father's motion, citing chronic dysfunction and conflict in the mother's household impacting the children's well-being.

The court applied the two-stage test for varying parenting orders, including the stringent threshold for temporary variations of final orders, and found a material change in circumstances.

Giving significant weight to the children's clear and consistent views, the court determined that changing primary residence to the father was in the children's best interests to address the intolerable situation and prevent further harm.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to examine the respondent's former counsel and for production of the counsel's file, arguing the respondent waived solicitor-client privilege during cross-examination.

The underlying dispute involved the respondent's refusal to discharge a vendor take-back mortgage, which allegedly caused the applicant damages.

The court found the respondent waived privilege by putting its instructions to counsel in issue.

Applying the First Capital test, the court granted leave to examine the former counsel under Rules 39.02(2) and 39.03, finding the evidence relevant to the assessment of damages and that the applicant had no prior notice of the respondent's position.

The parties brought cross-motions for interim parenting orders regarding their two youngest children.

The applicant mother sought primary care of the youngest child with conditions on the respondent father's parenting time, citing concerns about his admitted history of sexual addiction and inappropriate behaviour.

The respondent sought equal parenting time on a week-about basis.

The court granted the applicant primary care of the youngest child, finding it consistent with the status quo and the child's best interests.

The court expanded the respondent's parenting time but imposed conditions prohibiting him from keeping pornographic material where the child may be and from discussing his mental health or sexual behaviour with the child.

Parenting time for the older child was ordered to be in accordance with his wishes.

The parties separated after a 20-year marriage during which the applicant worked as a bookkeeper for the respondent's construction business.

The court determined the value of the business at separation, rejecting the applicant's expert's inclusion of 'secured customer leads' as property under the Family Law Act.

The court also addressed retroactive and ongoing spousal and child support, imputing income to the respondent based on a three-year pattern and awarding the applicant high-range spousal support of $3,300 monthly due to strong compensatory and needs-based claims.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking an advance interim payment of $22,000 for expert valuation costs, disclosure of various corporate financial documents, and an order for a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court dismissed the request for a section 30 assessment due to an insufficient evidentiary foundation.

The court ordered partial disclosure of the requested financial documents, limiting the scope based on proportionality and the burden on the respondent's business.

Finally, the court ordered the respondent to pay an advance of $10,000 under Rule 24(12) to assist the applicant with expert valuation costs, finding the requested $22,000 excessive.

The applicant wife brought a motion for the Ontario court to assume jurisdiction over all matters in their family law case, including divorce, equalization, and support.

The respondent husband brought a cross-motion to stay the divorce claim, arguing that he had already commenced a divorce proceeding in Poland and that Poland was the more appropriate forum.

The court found that it had jurisdiction under the Divorce Act and Family Law Act.

Applying the Van Breda framework, the court held that the husband failed to show that Poland was a clearly more appropriate forum, noting that the parties resided in Ontario throughout their marriage, the property issues were already conceded to Ontario, and a Polish divorce could prejudice the wife's spousal support claims.

The husband's motion was dismissed and the wife's motion was granted.

On competing interim motions in a family proceeding, the applicant sought to eliminate a prior order requiring supervised access with the parties’ three children, arguing that a material change in circumstances had occurred after he returned to work and obtained medical clearance following treatment for depression.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought continuation of the supervised access regime established by an earlier interim order.

The court held that variation of an interim custody or access order requires compelling evidence of changed circumstances demonstrating that the current arrangement is not in the children’s best interests.

The court found insufficient time had passed since the earlier order to conclude that the applicant’s mental health had stabilized in the long term.

Supervised access therefore continued, subject to limited relaxations in certain public settings, and interim child support was ordered pursuant to the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The applicant alleged that his union discriminated against him with respect to employment and union membership because of his disability.

The applicant was denied a Team Leader position due to medical restrictions, and the union declined to pursue a grievance on his behalf.

The Tribunal found that the union did not participate in the formulation of a discriminatory work rule, nor did it impede the employer's reasonable efforts to accommodate, as no such efforts were made.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that a union's failure to advocate or pursue a grievance on a human rights issue is not, in itself, a violation of the Code absent evidence that the union's conduct was based on discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent union requested the dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The union argued the application was moot, settled by a prior agreement between the applicant and his employer, and disclosed no prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the union was not a party to the settlement with the employer and provided no consideration for the release.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations went beyond a simple failure to represent and established a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal directed the union to file its position on the applicant's requested remedies.

The respondent was hired as a bingo hall manager and later signed an employment contract stating she could not be dismissed.

After being fired, she sued for wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge found the contract was for life and awarded $712,000 in damages, including lost wages until age 65 and lost profits from lottery ticket sales.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the contract lacked the explicit language required for a lifetime guarantee and interpreted it as an indefinite term contract.

The court reduced the damages to $30,800, representing a 12-month reasonable notice period, and excluded damages for lottery ticket sales as too remote.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits and requested the applicant attend a psycho-vocational assessment.

The applicant refused, arguing it was not an examination by a qualified medical practitioner and was not reasonably required.

The arbitrator found that the proposed assessment was predominantly vocational rather than medical, and therefore did not meet the requirements of section 23(2) of the Schedule.

Furthermore, given the extensive medical evidence already available and the lack of change in the applicant's condition, the request was not reasonable.

The applicant was not precluded from proceeding to arbitration.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits for 156 weeks.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant did not meet the test for continued entitlement.

The applicant sought reinstatement, claiming inability to work due to chronic pain and fibromyalgia.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's subsequent fall and worsening condition were related to the accident.

Accepting the medical evidence of fibromyalgia, the arbitrator concluded the applicant was unable to perform any suitable job and ordered the reinstatement of weekly income benefits.

The request for a special award was denied as the insurer had not unreasonably withheld payments.