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 plaintiffs purchased a home from the defendants, who had built the property themselves without a building permit.

Years later, the foundation wall collapsed due to excessive backfill and poor drainage.

The plaintiffs sued for negligent construction and negligent misrepresentation, alleging the defendants concealed the failing wall with a stud wall and made false statements on the Seller Property Information Statement.

The Superior Court of Justice found the defendants liable for both negligent construction and negligent misrepresentation, awarding the plaintiffs $100,000 in damages.

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 appellant landlord appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding it only $660 of a $9,905 claim for cleaning and repair costs against former tenants.

The Deputy Judge had discounted the landlord's primary evidence, an invoice from a non-arm's length company owned by the landlord's spouse, finding it unreliable and inflated.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the factual findings and rejected the landlord's claim of judicial bias.

However, the court found the Deputy Judge erred in law by applying section 42 of the Residential Tenancies Act (abandoned property) instead of section 41 (vacated property) to the disposal of outdoor furniture.

The appeal was allowed in part, increasing the judgment by $120 to $780.

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.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion for leave to appeal, the successful plaintiff sought costs of $3,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued the amount was excessive and suggested $1,000, noting their own costs would have been $1,893.

The court considered the principles of proportionality and the reasonable expectations of the losing party, fixing costs at $2,000 all inclusive.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of an action as statute barred under the notice provisions of the Municipal Act.

The court held there was no dispute that written notice had not been given within 10 days as required by s. 44(10), and the appellant therefore bore the onus under s. 44(12) to establish a reasonable excuse and absence of prejudice to the municipality.

The motion judge's reasons were found to be careful and considered, and the appellate court found no error in the analysis or in the application of the governing principles.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

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.