David G. Price

The mother appealed a summary judgment order that made her three-year-old child a Crown ward without access.

She brought a motion to stay the no-access order pending the hearing of her appeal.

The court found that the appeal raised serious issues, particularly regarding the motion judge's reliance on hearsay evidence and the mother's intention to introduce fresh evidence of her improved circumstances.

The court also determined that resuming supervised access was in the child's best interests, given the mother's positive interactions with the child and the risk of permanent psychological harm if access remained severed.

The motion was granted, and supervised access was ordered pending the appeal.

The parties each brought motions to change prior final family law orders relating to parenting time and child support.

One party sought expanded access and adjustments to the dispute resolution process concerning parenting arrangements, while the other sought variation of child support and extensive financial disclosure alleging undisclosed corporate interests and higher income.

At a settlement conference, the court addressed disclosure obligations, examination scheduling, and mediation steps, and established a detailed procedural timetable for production, questioning, and the hearing of both motions.

The court also directed the parties to pursue mediation and potential counseling with a child psychiatrist and made interim directions regarding the children's extracurricular activities.

Costs of the conference were reserved.

The plaintiffs moved to strike the defendant’s statement of defence under Rule 57.03(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to pay previously ordered motion costs.

The responding party argued he was impecunious and unable to satisfy the costs award.

The court held that striking a defence is an extreme remedy and generally a last resort, particularly where a party has not yet been given a final opportunity to comply.

The court ordered extensive financial disclosure to test the claim of impecuniosity and granted the defendant a final 90‑day opportunity to pay outstanding costs.

The defence would be struck if the ordered costs were not paid by the specified deadline.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the defendant employer moved for a more particularized disclosure and a further and better affidavit of documents from the plaintiff employee before proceeding with examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff cross‑moved to strike the statement of defence based on the defendant’s repeated failure to attend scheduled examinations for discovery.

The court held that the documents requested by the defendant, including bank statements, credit card records, and passport and immigration documents, were clearly relevant to the issues raised in the pleadings regarding wages, overtime compensation, and the circumstances surrounding the termination of employment.

However, the court also found that the defendant contributed to delay by failing to promptly bring a motion to compel disclosure.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce the requested documents and a sworn supplementary affidavit of documents and set a timetable for discoveries and trial preparation, while declining to strike the defence and awarding no costs.

A commercial tenant sought damages after its landlord terminated the lease, changed the locks, and leased the premises directly to the tenant’s sub‑tenants.

The court considered whether the landlord complied with the notice requirements under s. 19(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act before exercising a right of re‑entry.

The court held that the notices relied upon failed to specify breaches, provide a reasonable opportunity to remedy them, or require compensation as required by the statute.

The landlord’s re‑entry was therefore unlawful.

Damages were awarded based primarily on the tenant’s lost sublease rent for the remaining lease term and the return of the security deposit.

The parties, who separated in 2006 after a high-conflict marriage, both sought sole custody of their two children.

The father had primary care of the children during the week, while the mother had access on weekends.

The court found that both parents were loving and competent, but their inability to communicate and the father's controlling behaviour made joint custody unworkable.

To ensure both parents remained actively involved in the children's lives, the court ordered a shared (parallel) custody arrangement.

The children would reside with the father from Tuesday to Saturday and with the mother from Saturday to Tuesday.

Decision-making was divided: the father would decide on education, the mother on health and religion, and extra-curriculars would be decided jointly.

The mother was ordered to pay the set-off amount of child support under section 9 of the Guidelines.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim child and spousal support.

The respondent father had recently left his high-paying job at his parents' business to become a commercial real estate agent, resulting in a significant drop in his reported income.

He also failed to comply with court orders requiring financial disclosure.

The court found the respondent was intentionally under-employed and imputed an income of $124,000 to him based on his past earnings.

The court imputed an income of $28,000 to the applicant.

The respondent was ordered to pay interim child support of $1,709 per month and interim spousal support of $1,876 per month, retroactive to January 2012.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment against Sebastian Danny Caputo on an alleged personal guarantee for materials supplied on credit to Elements Stone & Paving Inc. The court held there were genuine issues requiring trial, including whether Caputo signed or knew of the credit application and guarantee, and whether third-party fraud occurred.

Because key findings depended on credibility and multiple witnesses, summary judgment was refused and the motion was dismissed.

Following a guardianship dispute among siblings concerning an elderly parent rendered incapable after a stroke, the applicant sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $67,000 after partial success in the underlying application.

The court had previously invalidated competing powers of attorney and appointed certain siblings as guardians while restoring the applicant’s access to the parent but refusing to grant her financial control.

In determining costs under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered divided success, the applicant’s unsuccessful attempt to validate earlier powers of attorney, and evidence showing mismanagement of the parent’s finances though dishonesty was not proven.

The respondents’ allegations of fraud were not found to be reprehensible or unreasonable given the evidentiary record.

Balancing fairness and reasonableness, the court concluded that neither side should recover costs.

The parties sought directions regarding the sale of the matrimonial home, division of household contents, and disclosure obligations following earlier court orders.

The court found both parties had failed to comply with the prior order requiring cooperation in appointing a real estate valuator and arranging sale of the property.

The court set a structured listing price reduction schedule for the matrimonial home and provided detailed directions regarding preparation and sale.

It also clarified the treatment of inherited or gifted property under the Family Law Act, confirming that inherited property does not become family property through use, while gifts may require evidence of intent.

The court ordered further disclosure of financial records and established a process for dividing or auctioning disputed household contents.

At a case conference in a family law proceeding, the parties sought directions relating to custody, support, and property issues following marital breakdown.

The matter involved disputes over custody of the child of the marriage, the status of a stepchild as a child of the marriage, spousal support, and the proposed sale of the matrimonial home.

The court addressed significant delay in service of the application and considered the high-conflict environment between the parties while they continued to reside in the same residence.

Orders were made for disclosure, a clinical assessment by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, screening for alcohol dependency, and steps to list and sell the matrimonial home.

The matter was adjourned to a settlement/trial management conference with interim procedural directions.

The moving party father sought leave to appeal an interim order that changed sole custody to joint custody with week-about access, and ordered him to pay child support.

He argued the motion judge erred by finding a material change in circumstances and by deciding child support after presiding over a brief settlement conference.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the disproving of the father's earlier allegations regarding the mother's mental health and flight risk constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court also found no breach of the Family Law Rules regarding the settlement conference, as the motion judge relied solely on the evidentiary record.

The request for a stay pending appeal was also dismissed.

The applicant sought costs after successfully obtaining leave to appeal a property tax assessment decision.

Before the costs order was finalized, the applicant requested a correction to the court's earlier reasons, noting the court had misunderstood its position regarding a claim for a refund of taxes for 2006 to 2008.

The court corrected its reasons, acknowledging the applicant had not abandoned its claim for a refund, but found this did not change the outcome of the leave to appeal motion.

The court then awarded the applicant costs of $8,700 on a partial indemnity scale, to be paid equally by the respondents, finding the amount reasonable given the complexity and importance of the issues.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessment of its property, and an extension of time to file the notice of application.

The Board had assessed the property based solely on its recent purchase price, without adjusting for the assessed values of similar properties in the vicinity as required by the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time, finding the statutory time limit to be procedural and the delay adequately explained.

The Court also granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision and that the interpretation of the equity provisions in the Assessment Act raised an issue of law of significance.

The parties were involved in multiple proceedings arising from their separation.

The husband sought to appeal an order dismissing his motion to set aside a final consent order regarding custody and access.

The wife brought a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing it was brought to the wrong court, out of time, and was an indirect attack on interim orders.

The husband brought a cross-motion to strike the wife's motion.

The Divisional Court found that while the appeal was properly directed to the Divisional Court, the husband required but had not obtained leave to appeal.

The court refused to grant a further extension of time to seek leave, noting there was no genuine basis for the appeal to succeed as the husband knew of the alleged misrepresentations before signing the consent order.

The wife's motion to dismiss the appeal was granted, and the husband's cross-motion was dismissed.