Dale Lediard

The Applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for extended Society care without access for three children of Métis heritage.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding extended care, as the parents had consistently failed to meet the children's basic needs and follow through with services.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding access, noting the children's connection to their parents and the Society's failure to adequately address how the children's Indigenous cultural connections would be maintained without access.

The court ordered extended care and directed a focused trial on the issue of access.

The Applicant sought an order for the return of her 8-year-old child, Keegan, to a week-about time-sharing arrangement and for police enforcement of a prior order.

The Respondent had withheld the child, citing COVID-19 precautions and alleged inadequate supervision by the Applicant, including an incident of sexual contact between Keegan and a cousin and viewing of pornographic images.

The court found no compelling circumstances to change the status quo, noting the Children's Aid Society deemed the child safe in either parent's home with a safety plan.

The Applicant's request for a monetary penalty for missed visits was dismissed due to procedural deficiencies in bringing a contempt motion.

The court ordered the immediate return of the child to the Applicant, make-up time, and police enforcement, and granted costs to the Applicant.

The applicant brought a motion to extend a temporary restraining order previously granted without notice.

The respondent opposed the extension, arguing there were no grounds.

The court found that a serious physical altercation had occurred between the parties during a vacation in Cuba, requiring the applicant to seek medical attention.

Concluding that the applicant had reasonable grounds to fear for her safety, the court granted the extension of the restraining order on a temporary basis.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to close a real estate transaction.

The purchaser had entered into an unconditional agreement of purchase and sale but failed to close because she could not sell her own property in a cooling market.

The vendor relisted and sold the property for a lower price and sued for the difference and carrying costs.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the purchaser breached the agreement and the vendor reasonably mitigated her damages by reselling the property at fair market value.

The plaintiff was injured in a single-car rollover accident after hitting a pothole on a municipal road.

She did not provide written notice of her claim to the municipality until almost two years later.

The municipality moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred under s. 44(10) of the Municipal Act.

The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the delay under s. 44(12), and the municipality was prejudiced because the road had been resurfaced and it lost the opportunity to conduct a timely investigation.