David G. Price

The plaintiff, VWR Capital Corp., brought an ex parte motion for a writ of possession against the defendant, Radha Dookie, following a mortgage default and default judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing that a writ of possession cannot be issued without sufficient evidence that the property is not tenanted and that all occupants have received formal notice, in compliance with section 48(1) of the Mortgages Act and the Residential Tenancies Act.

The plaintiff's evidence, based on a 2021 mortgage statement and statutory declaration, was deemed insufficient to prove the current tenancy status.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from Ms. Kabir's successful motion to dismiss Mr. Kalair's two motions to change prior consent orders (2013 and 2019) and his motion to have her found in contempt.

The court allowed Ms. Kabir's motion and dismissed Mr. Kalair's motions.

The parties were unable to agree on costs.

The court applied principles from the Family Law Rules, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness of conduct.

Mr. Kalair's repeated failure to provide financial disclosure and his unreasonable refusal of Ms. Kabir's settlement offer were key factors.

The court also affirmed that Ms. Kabir's Legal Aid certificate did not limit the costs recoverable to Legal Aid rates.

Ms. Kabir was awarded costs of $28,116.66 on a full recovery basis.

The defendant Google LLC moved for summary judgment to dismiss a defamation action brought by a daycare business and its owner.

The plaintiffs alleged that defamatory and fake reviews were posted on Google's 'Local Reviews' platform by the other defendants.

Google argued it was a passive intermediary and not a publisher of the third-party content.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues of fact and law requiring a trial, particularly regarding whether Google became a publisher by failing to remove the reviews after receiving notice of their defamatory nature.

The plaintiffs were also granted leave to bring a motion to amend their Statement of Claim.

The applicant father brought Motions to Change seeking to terminate spousal support, reduce child support, and expand parenting time.

The respondent mother moved to strike the applicant's motions due to his persistent failure to pay support and comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The applicant also brought a cross-motion to find the respondent in contempt for allegedly failing to facilitate parenting time.

The court denied the applicant's request for a further adjournment, finding it would cause undue delay and prejudice.

The court granted the respondent's motion to strike the Motions to Change, finding the applicant's non-compliance with support and disclosure orders to be egregious and willful.

The court dismissed the applicant's contempt motion, relying on Voice of the Child reports indicating the children adamantly refused contact with the applicant due to his past conduct, and finding the respondent had made reasonable efforts to facilitate access.

The applicant moved for the equal distribution of the net sale proceeds of a jointly owned investment condominium following the parties' separation.

The self-represented respondent objected, claiming a holdback for management fees she incurred while managing the property.

The court noted that while a joint tenant cannot typically charge management fees, the respondent's claim could be framed in equity as unjust enrichment or constructive trust.

Applying the principles for self-represented litigants, the court dismissed the applicant's motion without prejudice and granted the respondent leave to amend her pleadings to properly assert her equitable claims.

The respondent husband brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant wife's application to set aside their separation agreement.

The wife brought a cross-motion for financial disclosure.

The wife argued the agreement should be set aside due to financial non-disclosure, duress, undue influence, and unconscionability, alleging the husband dictated the terms and threatened her.

The court found genuine issues for trial regarding the validity of the agreement, noting the husband's failure to provide financial disclosure and evasiveness during cross-examination.

The court dismissed the husband's motion for summary judgment, granted the wife's motion for financial disclosure, and ordered the husband to pay costs on a full recovery basis.

The applicant sought a declaration that an access road to his property was a public road that the Township was obligated to maintain, and an order requiring its restoration.

The road had become impassable due to flooding caused by the Ministry of Transportation's removal of a culvert during highway reconstruction.

The court found the road was a public highway through historical dedication and acceptance.

The court held that the Ministry's actions caused the flooding, amounting to both injurious affection and de facto expropriation by landlocking the property.

The Ministry was ordered to restore the culverts and indemnify the Township for restoring the road, failing which the property would be deemed expropriated, allowing the applicant to seek compensation at the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The applicants sought an order directing the substituted buyer to transfer title of a pre-construction property to them.

The respondent had assigned his Agreement of Purchase and Sale to the applicants but failed to seek the builder's consent or pay the required fees.

Instead, as the property value rose, the respondent amended the agreement to substitute his realtor's wife as the buyer.

The court found that the respondent breached his duty of good faith by failing to take reasonable steps to complete the assignment.

The court ordered the substituted buyer, who held title in trust, to transfer the property to the applicants upon payment of the originally agreed purchase price.

The plaintiff successfully moved for an order to compel production of records and permit questioning from a non-party assessment company and its retained doctor, overcoming a claim of litigation privilege.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that successful motion.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs in the amount of $16,877.92, finding the motion involved important and complex issues, and that the time spent by the plaintiff's counsel was reasonable and not excessive, despite the defendants' arguments regarding proportionality and necessity of certain steps.

The plaintiff sought an order to compel production of records from a non-party assessment company, HVE Healthcare Assessments, and its retained expert, Dr. Joel Finkelstein, and to permit questioning of HVE.

The plaintiff argued that litigation privilege should yield to the principle of fairness, citing a reasonable suspicion that HVE improperly influenced Dr. Finkelstein's report, particularly concerning the summarization of surveillance evidence and the delayed disclosure of a conflicting expert report.

The court found a factual foundation for this suspicion, noting inconsistencies and the defendants' refusal to answer questions regarding HVE's involvement.

The court ordered the defendants to produce all relevant records from HVE and Dr. Finkelstein, excluding solicitor-client privileged communications, as these were deemed foundational documents not protected by litigation privilege under the circumstances.

The defendants were also ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.

The parties disputed the costs of previous motions regarding their child's parenting schedule and school enrollment, in which the respondent father was successful.

The applicant mother argued costs should be reduced because the respondent refused to mediate the dispute.

The court found the respondent's refusal to mediate was not unreasonable given the applicant's insistence on including her proposed relocation in the mediation.

Conversely, the court found the applicant acted unreasonably by unilaterally enrolling the child in a new school and withholding parenting time.

The court awarded the respondent his costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $9,613.48.

The parties disputed the costs of motions regarding their children's school enrollment, in which the applicant was successful.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the respondent acted unreasonably by unilaterally enrolling the children in a different school and refusing to adhere to their prior educational plan.

The respondent argued each party should bear their own costs because the applicant refused to participate in mediation/arbitration.

The court found neither party's conduct warranted a departure from partial indemnity costs.

The applicant was awarded $9,033.00 in costs, payable upon the resolution of the remaining issues or the sale of the family residence.

The applicant, 384130 Ontario Limited, sought declarations that an 18-year-old agreement for the purchase of a property, which included an environmental remediation clause, was valid and enforceable, and an order for specific performance.

The respondent, 520611 Ontario Limited, argued the agreement was unenforceable due to a true condition precedent not being met, frustration of contract due to escalating remediation costs, and that the applicant's claim was time-barred by the Limitations Act or barred by laches.

The court found that Ministry approval for remediation was not a true condition precedent, as it depended on the respondent's actions.

It also held that increased remediation costs did not frustrate the contract, as the obligation was not radically different.

The court further determined the claim was not time-barred, as the applicant's email was a complaint about delay, not an acknowledgment of repudiation, and the doctrine of laches did not apply due to the respondent's failure to unequivocally repudiate.

The court granted specific performance, finding the property unique due to its suitability for the applicant's auto repair business and the goodwill established over 18 years.

The parties separated and the applicant mother unilaterally relocated with the child from Mississauga to Etobicoke, enrolling the child in a new school.

The respondent father brought a motion to have the child returned to her previous school in Mississauga and for a shared parenting schedule.

The court found that it was in the child's best interests to maintain stability by returning to her previous school in Mississauga.

The court ordered a temporary 4-3/3-4 shared parenting schedule and appointed an assessor to conduct a section 30 assessment.

The parties, separated parents of two children, brought cross-motions for directions regarding which schools their children should attend for the 2021/2022 academic year.

The applicant sought to maintain the parties' pre-separation education plan, which involved the older child attending a 50/50 French Immersion program at a school in Caledon and the younger child attending a full French school in Orangeville for kindergarten.

The respondent, who had unilaterally enrolled the children in a different school in Orangeville after purchasing a home there, sought to have both children attend the new school.

The court applied the best interests of the child test, considering factors such as stability, the parents' ability to support the children's education, and the children's community connections.

The court found that maintaining the pre-separation education plan was in the children's best interests and ordered the children to attend the schools proposed by the applicant.

The parties attended a family law case conference.

The respondent husband revealed for the first time at the conference that he and his partners had sold their business the previous day, despite having negotiated the sale for five months.

The applicant wife sought leave to retain her own Chartered Business Valuator to prepare a comprehensive valuation of the respondent's business interest, which the respondent opposed on the basis that they had previously jointly retained a valuator who provided a calculation valuation.

The court granted the applicant leave to retain her own expert, finding that the respondent failed to comply with his financial disclosure obligations and that the previous calculation valuation provided little assurance of accuracy.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the conference due to his late disclosure, with the amount to be determined.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment for repayment of an alleged loan, and the self-represented defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action.

The defendant requested an adjournment due to symptoms from a COVID-19 vaccination.

The court granted the adjournment and provided extensive procedural guidance to the self-represented defendant, ordering her to file an affidavit, attend cross-examinations, participate in mediation, and file a factum before the rescheduled hearing.

Following the successful dismissal of a medical malpractice action on summary judgment due to the expiry of the limitation period, the defendants sought their costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendant doctor, finding the amounts claimed reasonable and proportionate.

The defendant clinic was awarded substantial indemnity costs from the date of its offer to settle, as the plaintiffs' continued opposition to the motion was unreasonable given their failure to produce an expert report.

The parties, a mother on disability and a father whose income is disputed, are engaged in protracted litigation over financial disclosure.

The Respondent sought to strike the Applicant's pleadings for alleged non-compliance with disclosure orders, including a demand for a business valuation the Applicant claimed she could not afford.

The court emphasized the principle of proportionality in disclosure, the importance of a discovery plan, and the need for counsel to exhaust reasonable efforts before seeking drastic enforcement measures.

The parties ultimately agreed to defer costs and adjourn the disclosure motions, with the court providing guidance on future disclosure requests and the need for a trial scheduling form.

This endorsement from a settlement conference addresses procedural steps in a family law dispute where parties have limited financial resources for litigation.

The court adjourned the conference to facilitate access to unbundled legal services and mediation for the self-represented applicant, and also for the respondent.

It ordered the release of $5,000 from matrimonial home sale proceeds to each party for these specific legal purposes, emphasizing the disproportionate cost of a full trial.