D. Andrew Thomson

This appeal concerned the enforceability of a "kitchen table" domestic contract signed by former common-law spouses regarding the transfer of property.

The trial judge found the agreement unenforceable due to non-compliance with formal requirements under s. 55(1) of the Family Law Act, specifically the lack of a witness, and alternatively, that it would be set aside under s. 56(4) due to the respondent's lack of understanding of its vague terms and absence of independent legal advice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, deferring to her findings of fact.

The court affirmed that a video recording of signing was not a substitute for proper witnessing and that the test for relaxing s. 55(1) formalities is distinct from the test for setting aside a contract under s. 56(4).

The appeal was dismissed, and the property sale was ordered.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment concerning equalization amounts, spousal support, and child support.

The appellant sought to adduce fresh evidence consisting of a psychiatric report regarding a child's dependent status.

The Court of Appeal declined to consider the fresh evidence on appeal, noting that the appropriate remedy was to seek variation under section 37(2.1) of the Family Law Act.

On the merits, the Court of Appeal applied the stringent standard of review for family law decisions and found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial judge's decision was plainly wrong.

The trial judge's findings regarding income imputation and business valuation were entitled to deference.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff, a dental office employee of 7.5 years, sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated without notice.

The defendant dentists alleged just cause, claiming the plaintiff falsified work hours and manipulated surveillance cameras.

The court found no reliable evidence of fraud or dishonesty, concluding the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed.

The court awarded 8 months' pay in lieu of notice but declined to award aggravated or punitive damages, finding the employer's conduct during termination was not unduly insensitive or in bad faith.

The applicant suffered a catastrophic brain injury resulting in severe cognitive impairments.

Shortly after his release from the hospital, the respondent, his former partner, secretly married him.

The applicant's sons, acting as his guardians, sought to annul the marriage, enforce a prior property settlement agreement, and obtain a non-communication order.

The court found that the applicant lacked the requisite mental capacity to understand the nature and responsibilities of marriage, declaring the marriage void ab initio.

The court also enforced the property settlement agreement, vesting sole title of the shared home in the applicant, and granted a permanent non-communication order against the respondent.

This decision addresses costs following a motion to change custody, child support, and section 7 expenses.

The applicant father was substantially successful in the underlying proceeding, being awarded custody of the child.

The court considered factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including time spent, result achieved, complexity, and proportionality, as well as principles from Boucher and Davies.

The court awarded the applicant costs in the amount of $25,000 inclusive of HST, plus disbursements of $805.40, finding no compelling reason for substantial indemnity costs.

The mother brought a motion to change a joint custody order, seeking sole custody of the parties' 8-year-old daughter.

The father responded by also seeking sole custody.

The court found a material change in circumstances as the parents could no longer communicate effectively, rendering joint custody unworkable.

After an 8-day trial featuring evidence from the Office of the Children's Lawyer and the child's psychotherapist, the court awarded sole custody to the father.

The court found the father provided a more stable environment, ensured regular school attendance, and fostered the child's extracurricular activities.

The mother's access was ordered to remain unsupervised, conditional upon her engaging in counselling to address her parenting skills and anger towards the father.

Claims for child support were dismissed due to the mother's limited income.

The Attorney General appealed a Superior Court decision that appointed two amici to assist on an appeal challenging the trial judge's appointment of amici in a complex family law custody and access case.

The appeal judge imposed a stay of proceedings conditional on the Attorney General negotiating a mutually acceptable rate of compensation with the appointed amici.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Attorney General's appeal, finding that Criminal Lawyers' Association does not impose an obligation on the Attorney General to negotiate rates with court-appointed amici, and that a stay is only appropriate where amicus assistance is truly essential and no other qualified counsel can be found.

The court set aside the stay and remitted the matter for the appointment of one amicus from counsel willing to accept legal aid rates.

The appellant, principal owner of a Cora franchise, appealed a summary judgment against him as guarantor of the franchisee's indebtedness.

The appellant sought to assert a set-off and counterclaim for damages arising from the loss of a potential franchise sale that failed to close when the franchisee refused to provide the franchisor with a release as required by the franchise agreement.

The motion judge found no basis for set-off and determined the damages claim was statute barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding the franchise agreement explicitly precluded set-off, the damages claim belonged to the franchisee not the appellant, and the limitation period had commenced before the appellant commenced the action.

The applicants achieved substantial success in an application and cross-application regarding an easement and right-of-way dispute, which was largely settled on the eve of the hearing.

The court considered the costs of the applications.

Applying Rule 57 and the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded the applicants costs fixed at $48,105.58 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court noted the applicants' generous settlement offers and the respondents' lack of cooperation and diligence throughout the litigation.

This case involves a divorce trial addressing spousal support, child support, business valuation, equalization of family property, and various financial adjustments.

The parties separated after 18.5 years of marriage.

The court granted the divorce, imputed an income of $35,000 per annum to the Applicant for spousal support calculations, and ordered spousal support to continue for a limited period, with a portion payable as a lump sum.

Child support obligations were adjusted based on the children's enrollment status and residency.

The court valued the parties' HVAC business at $104,000, accepting the Respondent's expert's valuation due to local market risks and post-separation business volatility.

After equalization and numerous financial adjustments for overpayments, joint debts, and shareholder loans, the Applicant was found to owe the Respondent $114,298.22.

This case involved an application and cross-application concerning easement and right-of-way issues over a property.

The applicants sought orders to rectify title deeds to confirm their right to park on and have unrestricted access to a right-of-way.

The cross-applicant sought to limit the right-of-way's terminus and deny parking rights.

The court found that the applicants had an unrestricted means of access and egress from and to the right-of-way at any point along its northerly boundary, based on the original grant and the mutual intention of the parties who created it.

The court also confirmed the applicants' right to park four vehicles on the right-of-way.

The respondent William Alfred King was noted in default.

The Attorney General of Ontario (AG) brought a motion to set aside the court's appointment of two amici curiae for an appeal, arguing that the court exceeded its jurisdiction and that the AG's policy of paying only legal aid rates should apply.

The court denied the AG's motion, finding that the AG's refusal to negotiate reasonable compensation with the appointed amici undermined the court's judicial role and appointment power.

The court emphasized the need for a flexible approach to amicus remuneration, especially given the unique qualifications and prior involvement of the appointed amici in this complex constitutional and jurisdictional appeal.

The underlying appeal was stayed until the AG and amici could agree on compensation.

The Applicant wife sought divorce, child support, spousal support, and an unequal division of net family property in an uncontested trial after the Respondent husband was noted in default.

The court imputed income to the Respondent for support calculations and found that the Applicant had disproportionately contributed to family property and debts.

The court granted the divorce, ordered child and nominal spousal support, and awarded the Applicant an unequal share of net family property by vesting the matrimonial home solely in her name.

Costs were also awarded to the Applicant.

Formerly convicted individuals brought a motion to set aside a Registrar’s administrative dismissal under Rule 48 after their civil actions for malicious prosecution and wrongful conviction had been dismissed for delay.

The court applied the four-factor framework from Reid v Dow Corning Corp, examining explanation for litigation delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

The court found the delay adequately explained, largely attributable to document production issues and changes in counsel, and concluded that counsel’s failure to diarize the set-down date constituted inadvertence rather than deliberate delay.

The defendants failed to establish actual prejudice, despite the age of the underlying events.

Applying a contextual approach and considering amendments to Rule 48.14, the court held that justice required permitting the plaintiffs to proceed.

The court determined costs following dismissal of a motion seeking removal of plaintiffs’ counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest.

Applying s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court exercised its discretion to award costs to the plaintiffs as the successful parties.

Although the motion raised a potentially significant issue regarding counsel’s role, the court found delay in bringing the motion and concerns suggesting it may have been brought for tactical reasons.

The amount sought by the plaintiffs was considered excessive for the scope and complexity of the motion.

Costs were fixed at a reduced amount payable by the defendant.

Parents appealed a child protection decision finding three children in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act and ordering Crown wardship without access for two children, with the third placed with the biological father under supervision.

The trial judge had concluded that one or both parents inflicted serious injuries on one child but could not determine which parent was responsible, and that the other parent failed to protect the child.

The appellants argued errors in credibility findings, failure to properly assess evidence, and improper consideration of changed circumstances.

The court held that the trial judge’s findings were supported by the evidence and attracted appellate deference absent palpable and overriding error.

Considering the severity of the injuries and the ongoing risk to the children, the court found that the disposition was in the children’s best interests.

The defendant brought a motion seeking to remove the plaintiffs’ solicitor of record on the basis of an alleged conflict of interest arising from the solicitor’s prior representation of the defendant in a property purchase.

Applying the test from MacDonald Estate v. Martin, the court considered whether the lawyer had received confidential information relevant to the current litigation and whether there was a risk that such information could be used to the defendant’s prejudice.

The court found that any information obtained during the earlier retainer was outdated, minimal, and largely discoverable through ordinary litigation processes.

The court also noted that the defendant delayed bringing the motion until shortly after service of a summary judgment motion, suggesting a tactical motive.

Balancing the integrity of the profession with the plaintiffs’ right to counsel of choice, the court declined to disqualify counsel.

The applicant brought a motion to change a prior custody order, alleging denial of access, interference with telephone contact, and failure by the custodial parent to address the child’s medical needs.

She also brought a contempt motion, while the respondent sought an order declaring the applicant a vexatious litigant.

The court held that the applicant failed to establish a material change in circumstances under the Children’s Law Reform Act and that the variation motion was effectively an attempt to relitigate or appeal the prior custody determination.

The contempt motion was also dismissed because the applicant herself had repeatedly failed to comply with the access terms of the order.

Although declining to impose the broadest restrictions under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court declared the applicant a vexatious litigant and prohibited her from commencing further proceedings relating to custody or access without leave of the court.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking leave to relocate with the parties' two children from Parry Sound to Aurora, to vary the respondent father's access schedule, and for retroactive child support.

The father opposed the relocation, arguing it would further alienate him from the children, particularly the daughter who already refused to see him.

The court applied the best interests of the child test from Gordon v. Goertz.

Despite two Office of the Children's Lawyer reports recommending against the move, the court granted the relocation, finding it would provide the mother with better economic opportunities and would not disrupt the father's existing alternate-weekend access with the son.

The court also ordered the mother to seek treatment to repair the father-daughter relationship and ordered the father to pay retroactive child support.

The father brought a motion to change custody of his son from the mother and sought child support following a change of custody.

The mother had relocated to Nova Scotia with the child in 2007 without the father's consent and remained there for five years, during which the father had minimal contact with the child.

The father initially pursued criminal charges of child abduction rather than family court proceedings.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was in Nova Scotia and declined to exercise jurisdiction, dismissing the father's motion to change custody.

The court found the mother's conduct in violating court orders to be outrageous but determined that Nova Scotia was the more appropriate forum given the child's connections to that province.