13 total
Respondent found to stand in the place of a parent after short marriage; 3-year support ordered.
The applicant sought child and spousal support following a 22-month cohabitation and marriage.
The central issue was whether the respondent stood in the place of a parent to the applicant's two children from a previous relationship, one of whom has severe autism.
Applying the Chartier factors, the court found the respondent demonstrated a settled intention to treat the children as his own.
The court ordered the respondent to pay child and spousal support for a fixed three-year term, reflecting the short duration of the relationship and the parties' reasonable expectations.
Accused acquitted of sexual assault and related charges due to reasonable doubt and unreliable complainant testimony.
The accused was charged with multiple offences, including obtaining sexual services for consideration, assault, sexual assault, and uttering threats, against a sex trade worker.
The incidents allegedly occurred during several meetings at hotels in Hamilton, Oakville, Niagara Falls, and Kitchener.
The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to her admitted heavy alcohol consumption during the material times, limited details, and inconsistencies.
Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court was left with a reasonable doubt on all charges and acquitted the accused.
Appeal of order denying adjournment dismissed; motion properly deemed abandoned after repeated failures to file materials.
The appellant appealed a motion judge's order denying an adjournment and deeming his motion to oppose a certificate of assessment abandoned.
The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal regarding his difficulties retaining counsel.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer test and the motion judge made no error in denying the adjournment given the appellant's repeated failures to file materials or comply with court orders over an 11-month period.
Applicant awarded $20,000 in costs despite divided success due to respondent's trial conduct and unpreparedness.
Following a family law trial with divided success regarding child support and section 7 expenses, the applicant sought costs of $82,001.61.
The respondent argued for no costs.
The court found that neither party's offers to settle triggered cost consequences.
However, the court awarded the applicant $20,000 in costs under Rule 24(7) of the Family Law Rules due to the respondent's lack of preparation and late disclosure, which significantly prolonged the trial.
Child support variation dismissed due to insufficient financial evidence from both self-employed parents.
The applicant father sought to vary child support and section 7 expenses under a shared parenting arrangement, arguing that the incomes of both self-employed parties needed to be determined.
The court dismissed the variation application, finding that neither party provided sufficient or reliable financial evidence, such as expert income analyses or property appraisals, to determine their true incomes from their complex corporate real estate holdings.
However, the court granted the applicant's claims for the respondent's unpaid share of section 7 expenses, repayment of RESP funds, transfer of a time share property, and costs for failing to exchange family photographs as required by their prior Minutes of Settlement.
Judicial review of firefighter interest arbitration award dismissed; blended wage approach was procedurally fair and reasonable.
The applicant municipality sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that determined wages for its firefighters.
The arbitration panel had adopted a blended approach, relying on both local police wages and freely bargained firefighter wages in a comparable municipality.
The applicant argued this approach breached procedural fairness as it was not advanced by either party and relied on unsubmitted jurisprudence, and that the award was unreasonable.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the blended approach was not novel, the parties had the opportunity to make submissions on the relevant comparators, and the resulting award fell within a reasonable range of outcomes.
Rule 49 costs consequences not engaged as judgment was more favourable than offer when factoring costs.
Following a two-week jury trial where the plaintiff was awarded $81,658.83 net, the court determined costs.
The defendant argued that its $100,000 settlement offer engaged Rule 49 consequences.
The court applied the principles from Rooney v. Graham, finding that when the costs terms of the offer were factored in, the judgment achieved was more favourable than the offer.
Furthermore, the offer was not served at least seven days before the hearing as required by Rule 49.
The plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs throughout.
Judicial review of tribunal's decision to hold a hearing dismissed as premature.
The General Manager of OHIP sought judicial review of a decision by the Physician Payment Review Board to hold a hearing regarding the denial of a physician's billing claims.
The General Manager argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to review denials made under s. 18(3) of the Health Insurance Act.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify judicial intervention before the Board had fully considered the jurisdictional issue and the true basis for the claim denials.
Appeal dismissed; Board's refusal to grant rehearing due to landlord's lack of diligence upheld.
The landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board denying its request to review a rent abatement order made in its absence.
The landlord claimed it did not receive the notice of hearing or the order.
The Board found this unlikely, as the documents were mailed to the correct corporate address and not returned, inferring a lack of diligence by the landlord's head office staff.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's factual finding of lack of diligence was supported by evidence and did not constitute an error of law.
Child support increased after court attributes corporate income, loans, and personal expenses.
The payor parent brought two motions to change seeking a reduction in child support based on alleged decreases in income.
The court found significant disclosure failures, credibility issues, and inaccurate financial statements.
After examining corporate records and evidence concerning the payor’s closely held corporation, the court attributed full corporate income, shareholder loans, and personal expenses paid through the corporation as income under the Child Support Guidelines.
The court determined the payor’s income for support purposes was substantially higher than claimed and increased the monthly child support obligations retroactively and prospectively.
A request by the responding parent to vary holiday access was dismissed for lack of material change.
Appeal from denial of criminal injuries compensation dismissed; Board properly considered applicant's subsequent criminal record.
The appellant, an Aboriginal man who suffered abuse at a training school as a youth, appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying him compensation.
The Board had weighed the abuse he suffered against his extensive subsequent criminal record and concluded compensation was not reasonable.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board made no error of law in considering his criminal record under s. 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, and that Gladue principles do not strictly apply to civil compensation determinations.
Non‑compliant support payor barred from calling evidence unless arrears paid.
The applicant brought a motion at the start of trial seeking to strike the respondent’s pleadings due to his failure to comply with a prior order requiring monthly spousal support payments.
The respondent admitted unilaterally reducing the ordered payments and accumulating arrears of $10,032 but claimed an inability to pay due to business difficulties.
The court found the respondent provided no reliable evidence of inability to pay and noted a history of non‑compliance with support and disclosure orders.
While recognizing that striking pleadings is a drastic remedy of last resort under Rule 14(23) of the Family Law Rules, the court imposed a conditional sanction.
The respondent was permitted to attend and cross‑examine but was barred from presenting his own evidence unless he paid the full arrears before the close of the applicant’s case.
Crown failed to show distinctive pattern; similar fact evidence excluded.
The Crown brought two applications to admit similar fact evidence in a prosecution for multiple commercial break and enter offences.
The first application sought admission of the accused’s prior convictions for numerous break and enters committed several years earlier.
The second sought to permit count‑to‑count similar fact reasoning among the charged offences.
The court held that the alleged similarities—such as targeting commercial food premises, nighttime entries, use of dark clothing, and removal of door glass—were generic and did not amount to a distinctive signature or sufficiently striking pattern.
The Crown also failed to establish a sufficient evidentiary link connecting the accused to the charged offences.
Both applications were therefore dismissed.
