Danny Antonio Jr Gurizzan

The moving party sought an extension of time to perfect his appeal from a family law order, intending to adduce fresh expert evidence.

The moving party had previously had his pleadings struck for breaching disclosure and support orders, and remained in breach of ongoing support obligations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the moving party lacked clean hands and that the delay was inexcusable and prejudicial to the responding party and children.

The proposed appeal was also found to be without apparent merit.

The plaintiff, an acquirer bank, sought an interlocutory mandatory injunction to enforce its contractual right to audit the defendant, a payment operator, after the defendant terminated their agreement and invoked a de-conversion process.

The defendant brought a cross-motion for a mandatory injunction requiring the plaintiff to release funds it had moved from settlement accounts to reserve accounts, alleging breach of trust.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding a strong prima facie case that the audit right survived during de-conversion and that the loss of the right constituted irreparable harm.

The defendant's cross-motion was dismissed as it failed to establish a strong prima facie case or irreparable harm, and there was no basis to find the settlement accounts were trust funds.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking sole custody, a restraining order, and a no-contact order against the respondent mother, following an alleged assault involving one of their children.

The mother had been criminally charged and was subject to an undertaking prohibiting contact with the children.

The court dismissed the urgent motion, finding no ongoing urgency as the children were safe with the father and the mother's undertaking already provided the requested protective measures.

The court encouraged the parties to discuss temporary arrangements for contact, decision-making, and child support, noting that any future urgent motions would need to meet established criteria.

Dirm 2010 Inc. was substantially successful in a construction lien trial, recovering over $1.3 million.

This decision addresses the issue of costs.

The court, Master C. Albert, fixed costs on a partial indemnity scale, considering factors such as the principle of indemnity, reasonable expectation of the payor, complexity, importance of issues, and proportionality.

Dirm's failure to make a formal settlement offer under Rule 49 resulted in a $6,000 deduction from the awarded costs.

The court also adjusted counsel's hourly rates, reduced the time claimed for a junior lawyer due to excessive docketed time as a student, and disallowed costs for two lawyers attending trial.

Costs were fixed at $354,151.19 payable by Prestressed Systems Incorporated to Dirm 2010 Inc.

Dirm 2010 Inc. brought a construction lien claim against Prestressed Systems Incorporated (PSI) for unpaid work on a concrete topping subcontract for a parking garage.

PSI counterclaimed, alleging Dirm's work was defective and that Dirm fundamentally breached the contract.

The court found that the contract consisted of the negotiated terms, not the onerous unsigned purchase order PSI attempted to impose.

The court held that Dirm's work, while requiring some remediation, did not constitute a fundamental breach.

PSI breached the contract by terminating Dirm without reasonable opportunity to cure and without justification.

Dirm was awarded $1,315,159.20 for completed work, allowable extras, and lost profit, less reasonable backcharges for deficiencies.

The plaintiff was entirely successful in defeating the defendant's motion for security for costs.

The plaintiff sought costs of $21,200 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the defendant argued the parties should bear their own costs or costs should be in the cause.

The court found no basis for substantial indemnity costs and noted the plaintiff's time expenditure was somewhat excessive.

Costs were fixed at $11,000 inclusive of HST payable forthwith.

In a family trial arising from a marriage breakdown involving four children, the court resolved disputed issues of separation date, custody and access, child support, spousal support, income, and equalization.

The court preferred the respondent’s evidence on key credibility disputes, fixed the separation date at September 19, 2012, and declined to adopt a parallel parenting regime despite the respondent’s request.

Sole custody remained with the applicant, with structured access and mutual information-sharing terms.

Both parties’ current incomes were found to be zero, child support was fixed at zero, section 7 expenses were ordered shared equally, and the applicant’s entitlement to compensatory spousal support was recognized but quantified at $1 per year pending review.

On property issues, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent an equalization payment of $10,380.21.