Cynthia Petersen

The parties separated after an 11-year marriage and sought resolution of numerous financial issues, including equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, child support, spousal support, and occupation rent.

The court interpreted their Marriage Contract to allow for equalization while excluding specific properties.

The court calculated the equalization payment, ordered post-separation adjustments for carrying costs and joint debts, and awarded the respondent occupation rent for the applicant's exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court also imputed an income of $80,000 to the applicant due to intentional underemployment, dismissed her claim for spousal support, and calculated retrospective child support and section 7 expenses, ultimately resulting in a net payment owed by the applicant to the respondent.

The applicant father and respondent mother engaged in a protracted high-conflict family law trial regarding parenting and support for their two children.

The mother alleged a history of severe family violence and coercive control, including the father gaslighting her and manipulating medical professionals into diagnosing her with bipolar disorder.

The father alleged the mother was alienating the children.

The court found the father entirely lacking in credibility, accepted the mother's evidence of abuse, and found the father had engaged in a relentless campaign of parental alienation and psychological abuse.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the children, with a temporary no-contact order between the father and the younger child.

The court also imputed income to both parties and ordered the father to pay retrospective and ongoing child support, finding the mother entitled to spousal support.

Following a family law trial with divided success, all three parties sought costs.

The Applicant sought $55,365.48, the Third Party sought $29,893.47, and the Respondent sought $51,864.22.

The court found the Respondent's request for full indemnity costs entirely without foundation as he was largely unsuccessful and engaged in unreasonable conduct.

The Third Party was awarded $12,000 for successfully defending against the Respondent's trust claims, but denied costs for her cross-claim due to lack of evidence.

The Applicant was awarded $5,000, significantly reduced due to divided success on section 7 expenses and her disorganization which unnecessarily protracted the trial.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision declaring them 'related employers' under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union had argued that the employer's use of independent contractors eroded bargaining rights.

The Divisional Court found the OLRB Vice Chair's decision unreasonable because it failed to consider the history of collective bargaining, the collective agreement, and letters of understanding regarding the employer's longstanding practice of contracting out work.

The court held that this failure led to a decontextualized analysis of the employer's control over the contractors.

The court set aside the OLRB decision and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing before a different Vice Chair.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff for unpaid shipping and handling fees.

The corporate defendant failed to provide a valid explanation for its default and did not raise an arguable defence, so the motion was dismissed as against it.

However, the personal defendant raised an arguable defence of unconscionability regarding a personal guarantee he signed without legal advice to secure the release of vehicles held by the plaintiff.

The court set aside the default judgment against the personal defendant, allowing him to defend the action solely on the basis of unconscionability.

The applicant, Michel Lalancette, was convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

Prior to sentencing, he brought a motion challenging the constitutionality of the simple possession and trafficking provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

He sought to challenge the provisions as they apply to all scheduled substances.

The court held that the applicant lacked private interest standing to challenge the simple possession provision, as its invalidation would not mitigate his sentence for trafficking.

The court also declined to grant public interest standing, finding that other reasonable and effective means exist to challenge the provisions.

The constitutional challenge was therefore limited to the trafficking provision as it relates to heroin.

The defendant, John Hogan, brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff, Halton Electric Co. Limited, in a construction lien action.

Hogan argued procedural irregularity due to a faxed Notice of Intent to Defend going astray, and also sought discretionary relief.

The court found no procedural irregularity but exercised its discretion to set aside the default judgment, finding a plausible excuse for the default, an arguable defence on the merits (particularly regarding personal liability under s. 13(1) of the Construction Lien Act), and no significant prejudice to the plaintiff.

The court declined to impose conditions for setting aside the judgment.

The accused was convicted of assault with a weapon after stabbing his lifelong friend in an unprovoked attack.

The victim suffered serious physical and psychological harm.

The accused, a first-time offender, was experiencing psychosis and persecutory delusions at the time of the offence, which significantly mitigated his moral blameworthiness.

The court balanced the need for denunciation and acknowledgment of harm with the accused's ongoing rehabilitation and mental health treatment.

The accused was sentenced to 90 days' imprisonment, to be served intermittently, followed by two years of probation.

The applicant father brought a motion to have the parties' eight-year-old child return to in-person schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent mother opposed, seeking to continue online learning due to her chronic auto-immune disease and the young age of her other children.

Applying the factors from Zinati v. Spence, the court found that while the child was not at increased risk, the significant risk of harm to the mother and younger siblings outweighed the benefits of in-person learning.

The court ordered the child to continue with online learning for the 2020/2021 school year.

The parties brought urgent motions regarding an interim parenting schedule for their two-year-old daughter, MV, due to police involvement in exchanges and mutual withholding of access.

The court dismissed non-urgent issues and focused on the interim parenting plan.

The court found no consistent status quo parenting arrangement and rejected the applicant's claims of the respondent's threatening behavior and safety concerns.

The court criticized both parties for inappropriate withholding of the child, particularly the applicant for prolonged denial of access.

Applying the best interests of the child and the maximum contact principle, the court ordered a graduated increase in the respondent's parenting time, including overnights, equal sharing of exchanges, mutual right of first refusal, and specific make-up time for the respondent.

The applicant's request for a police enforcement order was denied.

The plaintiffs sued two law firms and their lawyers for professional negligence related to a commercial asset sale and subsequent arbitration.

The defendants brought summary judgment motions to dismiss the claims.

The court dismissed both motions, finding genuine issues requiring a trial against the FLPC Defendants and deeming partial summary judgment inadvisable for the SWL Defendants due to the risk of inconsistent findings and the central role of credibility issues.

The applicant mother sought an order for primary residence, final decision-making authority, and permission to relocate with the parties' 10-year-old daughter from Aberfoyle to Ajax to live with her new partner.

The respondent father opposed the move and sought an equal shared parenting arrangement and joint custody.

The court denied the mother's request to relocate, finding that the move would be highly disruptive to the child and would sever her ties to her community, school, extended family, and father.

The court ordered joint custody and an equal week-about shared parenting schedule, finding that both parents were capable and loving, and that maximum contact with both parents was in the child's best interests.

Child support was ordered on a set-off basis in accordance with the shared parenting arrangement.

The applicant and respondent participated in a Nikah ceremony and cohabited for four and a half years.

The court deemed the marriage valid under s. 31 of the Marriage Act.

The applicant sought a 50% equitable interest in the matrimonial home, which was registered in the names of the respondent and his father.

The court found a resulting trust in favour of the applicant, declaring her a 50% owner, and ordered the sale of the home.

The court awarded the applicant occupation rent and an unequal division of net family properties due to the respondent's reckless gambling debts and the applicant's undisclosed student loan.

Income was imputed to the respondent for child support purposes, resulting in significant arrears.

The court ordered alternating weekend access for the respondent, with a condition that the child not be left alone with the paternal grandfather due to unresolved historical allegations.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against his 11-year-old son.

The allegations arose from a single incident in the fall of 2017.

The trial judge applied the W.(D.) framework to assess the credibility of both the complainant and the accused.

The judge found both the complainant and the accused to be credible and compelling witnesses.

As the judge was unable to resolve the conflicting testimony and was left with a reasonable doubt, the accused was acquitted of both charges.

The father (D.R.) and paternal grandmother (C.L.) appealed a trial judge's decision regarding access to the children (K.R., S.R., C.R.) who were in the extended care of Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington Country (F&CS).

The trial judge had barred access for the father to two daughters, granted limited access to the son, and granted limited supervised access to the grandmother, making the children the access holders.

The appellants sought more liberal access, reunification therapy, and a stay of adoption proceedings.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the children remained in need of protection due to emotional harm risks, primarily from the paternal family's denial of sexual abuse allegations and lack of support for the children's trauma stories.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or legal principles, including the refusal to order reunification therapy without the children's consent and a detailed therapeutic plan.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding an employment standards claim against his former employer.

The dispute centered on the number of hours the applicant worked in October 2017.

The Board found he worked 34.5 hours, while the applicant claimed he worked up to 93 hours.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's factual finding was reasonable based on the evidence, which included a paystub and OMVIC registration documents.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court expressed dismay that the appellant failed to file a proper record, transcripts, or exhibits, and instead filed an affidavit without moving to admit fresh evidence.

The respondent also filed an affidavit improperly.

The court adjourned the appeal, imposing tight timelines for the appellant to order transcripts and perfect the appeal, and ordered no costs to date.

The plaintiff sued a real estate brokerage, its realtors, and its franchisor (RE/MAX Ontario) along with the franchisor's officers, alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence related to the sale of his properties.

The franchisor and its officers brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against them, which were based solely on vicarious liability and piercing the corporate veil.

The court granted the motion, finding no evidence of an employer/employee or principal/agent relationship between the franchisor and franchisee, nor any policy reasons to impose vicarious liability based on control.

The court also found no evidence to support piercing the corporate veil or holding the corporate officers personally liable.

The three accused, charged with conspiracy to import cocaine and breach of trust, brought applications under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude intercepted private communications.

They alleged their s. 8 rights were violated because the police affiant deliberately misled the authorizing judge regarding the investigative plan to establish reasonable and probable grounds for the wiretap.

The court found the affidavit was materially misleading, though not deliberately so, and that without the misleading information, the authorization lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The court concluded the wiretap violated s. 8 of the Charter and excluded the evidence under s. 24(2), finding the serious police carelessness and subsequent false testimony by the affiant outweighed society's interest in a trial on the merits.

The applicant, Indira Sampath, and respondent, Sandra Deopersad, brought motions concerning the distribution of net refinancing proceeds from a residential property.

Equitable title to the property was held 60% by Sampath and 40% by Sirju Deopersad (Sandra's ex-spouse).

Sandra Deopersad sought to apply Sirju's 40% share to his outstanding judgment debt to her.

Sampath's cross-motion sought reimbursement from Sirju for his share of carrying costs based on unjust enrichment.

The court granted Sandra Deopersad's motion, calculating Sirju's net share after specific transactional cost deductions, and dismissed Sampath's cross-motion, finding that her unjust enrichment claim was not properly pleaded and could not take priority over Sandra Deopersad's judgment enforcement.