David G. Price

The assignee of a mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a contractor’s lien action and return of funds paid into court as security for the lien.

The moving party argued the lien was invalid because it was registered beyond the 45‑day period following publication of the certificate of substantial performance and because certain change orders and delay claims were not approved by the architect as required by the contract.

The contractor maintained that additional work continued after substantial performance through change orders and that delay costs and a municipal fine were approved by the lender acting as payment certifier.

The court held that genuine issues for trial existed regarding whether change orders and delay costs were properly approved, whether the lender could act as substitute certifier under industry practice or implied contractual terms, and whether the lien was timely preserved.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.

The mother brought a motion to change the father's access to their two children from unsupervised to supervised, and to dispense with his consent for the children to travel outside Canada.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking to use his share of the matrimonial home's sale proceeds to pay his criminal defence costs.

The court dismissed the mother's request for supervised access, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify restricting the father's access, but ordered that access exchanges occur through a third party or supervised access centre to minimize conflict.

The court granted the mother permission to travel with the children subject to notice requirements.

The father's request to use the sale proceeds for his legal defence was dismissed, as the funds were needed to secure his future child support obligations.

The respondent was substantially successful on motions to bifurcate the trial and compel financial disclosure from the applicant, who was seeking to set aside their separation agreement.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The respondent sought $12,290.00 on a substantial indemnity scale, while the applicant argued for $3,000.00.

The court found that the applicant's conduct in challenging the agreement while concealing his current financial circumstances warranted costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court fixed the respondent's costs at $8,407.20, inclusive of HST, after adjusting the hours claimed for preparation to ensure proportionality and reasonableness.

The applicant father brought a motion regarding child support for his three children, including his adult stepdaughter who was attending university away from home and had become estranged from him after discovering his marital infidelity.

The mother sought interim child support, a contribution to university expenses, and orthodontic costs.

The court found that the stepdaughter remained a child of the marriage and her estrangement did not disentitle her to support.

The court imputed $5,000 in undeclared hockey refereeing income to the father, found the table amount inappropriate for a child living away for university, and ordered the father to pay a proportionate share of the university expenses after deducting the child's contribution.

In a family law proceeding following the breakdown of an 18‑year relationship, the applicant sought custody, child and spousal support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and an unequal division of net family property.

At a case conference, the court addressed extensive disclosure issues between the parties concerning finances, property transactions, corporate interests, and other assets.

The court ordered both parties to produce comprehensive financial disclosure, including bank statements, tax returns, corporate records, litigation documents, and records relating to real property and business interests.

Directions were also given requiring requests to be made to several non‑parties for production of documents and permitting further motions for compliance where necessary.

The matter was scheduled to return for a settlement conference after completion of disclosure and any compliance motions.

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce unsigned minutes of settlement that were negotiated to vary a 2008 separation agreement.

The respondent father refused to sign the minutes after his renovation business failed, arguing a material change in circumstances and an unresolved issue regarding the child's allergies.

The court found that no final agreement was reached and declined to enforce the draft minutes, applying the Nigris factors.

Instead, the court varied the child support obligations based on the father's reduced imputed income and established a comprehensive access and holiday schedule.

The applicant mother brought a motion for sole custody and primary residence of the parties' two young children, along with full table child support.

The respondent father sought sole custody and a variable parenting schedule based on his work as a pilot, with set-off child support.

The court found that both parents were capable and loving but exhibited high conflict and poor communication.

The court ordered shared (parallel) custody, dividing decision-making responsibilities between the parents, and established a fixed, predictable parenting schedule to provide stability for the children.

The father was ordered to pay full table child support and his proportionate share of section 7 daycare expenses.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim joint custody and equal parenting time of the parties' two-and-a-half-year-old daughter.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, seeking sole custody.

The court found that the high level of conflict between the parties, exacerbated by the paternal grandmother's interference and denigration of the mother, made joint custody or parallel parenting inappropriate.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, finding it in the child's best interests, and ordered a specified access schedule for the father.

The plaintiffs sought directions after the defendant paid an outstanding costs order but failed to comply with the remaining terms of a previous order requiring him to produce financial documents and attend for cross-examination regarding his claim of impecuniosity.

The defendant argued that paying the costs relieved him of the other obligations.

The court held that the defendant could not selectively comply with the order to avoid cross-examination, as his financial status was relevant to the broader proceeding.

The court ordered the defendant to produce the documents and attend for cross-examination, failing which the plaintiffs could return their motion to strike his Statement of Defence.

During a trial management conference in an ongoing family law proceeding, the parties participated in a teleconference and provided updates regarding the schooling, services, and medical arrangements for their children following a proposed relocation to Simcoe County.

On consent, the court varied an earlier custody order to establish a revised parenting schedule under which the children would reside with the father during weekdays and spend designated weekends with the mother.

The order also addressed school enrollment, transportation arrangements, medical treatment compliance, and counselling requirements for the parties.

The children were deemed to continue primarily residing with the mother for purposes including child tax benefits, and existing child support obligations remained in place.

The custody and access arrangement was ordered to be reviewed at the next resumption of the trial management conference.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking the sale of a matrimonial home pending trial, the court determined the appropriate costs award under the Family Law Rules.

The successful party sought full indemnity costs, arguing the motion was vexatious and strategically brought on the eve of trial.

The court assessed the relevant factors under Rule 24(11), including complexity, counsel rates, time spent, proportionality, and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

Finding the motion was brought in circumstances that created unfair financial pressure and effectively attempted to relitigate prior issues, the court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

This was a standalone costs decision following the dismissal of a plaintiff’s summary judgment motion in an action over construction supply credit and an alleged personal guarantee.

The court held that the plaintiff unreasonably proceeded with the motion despite a direct denial of the signature and related facts, without obtaining handwriting evidence or other proof necessary to eliminate a genuine issue for trial.

Applying the costs principles under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, Rule 57.01, and Rule 20.06, the court found substantial indemnity costs were justified.

The successful defendant was awarded fixed costs of $38,058.80, payable within thirty days, and the costs were not deferred to the trial judge.

The wife brought a motion to find her husband in contempt for failing to comply with several court orders, including orders to pay child and spousal support, return a boat, reinstate medical/dental insurance, and file an updated financial statement.

The court found the husband in contempt for failing to return the boat and for failing to pay $7,626.00 in support arrears.

The court rejected the husband's evidence regarding cash payments and alleged forged receipts, directing the wife to provide the evidence to the police for investigation.

The court ordered the husband to pay the arrears, secure medical/dental coverage, and set a schedule for further disclosure and a settlement conference.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 34.15 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order compelling the defendant and a related witness to re-attend cross‑examinations on affidavits and answer outstanding undertakings and refusals.

The issues arose in the context of a pending motion by the defendant to set aside a default judgment entered against him for breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act.

The court held that the disputed questions and requested documents, including corporate records, financial statements, tax returns, and records relating to a successor company, were relevant to determining whether the defendant had a meritorious defence and whether he exercised control over the corporate defendant.

The court ordered the defendant and witness to re-attend to answer the questions and produce documents.

Costs were awarded against the defendant on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant mortgagee, seeking a refund of overpayments and punitive damages.

The defendant had previously obtained a default judgment for $46,950.19 but later demanded $82,238.28 to discharge the mortgage when the plaintiffs sold their home.

The court found that the registrar had unlawfully signed the initial default judgment for unliquidated claims.

Furthermore, the court held that the defendant's demand for accelerated interest and excessive fees violated section 8 of the Interest Act and the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act.

The court ordered the defendant to refund $40,223.85 and awarded $30,000 in punitive damages for its high-handed and unconscionable conduct.

The applicant mother sought directions concerning the implementation of a prior order governing her access to the parties’ child.

The dispute arose after the child resisted access and the respondent father unilaterally enrolled the child in a different school, making access more difficult.

The court emphasized the need to comply with a prior order directing counselling and a mini‑assessment under s. 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act by a child psychiatrist to determine the source of the child’s resistance and his preferences regarding residence and schooling.

The court ordered the resumption of the mother’s access and directed both parties to immediately arrange the assessment and cooperate in providing information regarding schooling options.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment for the balance of proceeds from the sale of a property she held in trust for the defendants, her daughter and son-in-law.

The son-in-law opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiff breached her trust duties by delegating control of the trust funds to her daughter and by selling the property improvidently.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's delegation of discretionary trust powers and the need for an accounting of the trust funds raised genuine issues requiring a trial.

The plaintiffs, who operate a commercial lighting manufacturing business, brought an action against the defendants, who operate an adjacent transport and warehousing business.

The plaintiffs claimed that dust from the defendants' unpaved parking lot constituted a nuisance that interfered with their manufacturing process, causing a loss of productivity.

They also claimed that the defendants' transport trucks repeatedly trespassed onto their driveway, damaging curb stones and displacing concrete blocks.

The court found that the dust constituted an actionable nuisance and awarded damages for loss of productivity and refinishing costs.

The court also found that the trucks trespassed on the plaintiffs' property, holding the corporate defendants and their director personally liable.

Damages were awarded for the trespass, and a permanent injunction was granted to restrain further trespassing.

The respondent spouse opposed a motion by the applicant spouse seeking an interim order for the sale of a residential property pending trial.

The central dispute was whether the property constituted a matrimonial home and whether the court should order its sale before trial.

The court held there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the status of the property and the respondent’s potential entitlement to spousal support and possessory rights under the Family Law Act.

Given the respondent’s vulnerability as a recent immigrant with limited resources and the imminence of trial, the court declined to exercise discretion to order an interim sale.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant moved for the interim sale of the matrimonial home and enforcement of a parenting agreement.

The respondent cross-moved for interim spousal support and interim child support for the parties' child and her child from a previous relationship.

The court dismissed the motion for the sale of the home, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the respondent's right to possession.

The court dismissed the claim for child support for the stepchild due to insufficient evidence that the applicant stood in the place of a parent.

The court ordered interim child and spousal support based on the applicant's 2011 income, imputing income despite his claim of inability to work due to a motor vehicle accident.

The court also affirmed the applicant's right to mid-week access.