David G. Price

In a family law proceeding, the respondent's lawyer brought a motion to be removed from the record and to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee as the respondent's Litigation Guardian.

The respondent suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and repeatedly refused to take medication, communicate with his lawyer, or attend court.

Despite a recent hospital discharge and a doctor's letter suggesting he was capable while medicated, the court found the respondent incapable of instructing counsel over the course of the proceeding.

The court appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as the respondent's Litigation Guardian.

The defendant moved to set aside a default judgment obtained after she failed to attend the trial.

She explained her absence was due to generalized anxiety disorder, feeling overwhelmed after her lawyer removed himself from the record on the eve of trial, and a pre-trial judge's prediction that an adjournment would be denied or granted on onerous terms.

The court found her explanation reasonable, noting she moved promptly to set aside the judgment and presented an arguable defence based on an oral family agreement and part performance.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was granted.

The appellant mother appealed an order varying child and spousal support.

The respondent father had previously failed to disclose financial information, resulting in an uncontested order imputing his income at $100,000.

Three months later, he voluntarily quit his $85,000 job for a $35,000 job.

Years later, he sought to vary the support order, relying on the tax information he had previously withheld.

The motions judge reduced the imputed income retroactively to $85,000 and prospectively to $57,200.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motions judge erred in relying on previously withheld disclosure to retroactively vary support, and made a palpable and overriding error by imputing a lower income without evidence that the father was incapable of earning the higher amount.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) brought a motion to set aside an ex parte order appointing it as Estate Trustee during Litigation for an intestate estate.

The PGT argued it should be a trustee of last resort and noted that it had not consented to the appointment, as required by the Public Guardian and Trustee Act.

The court found that appointing one of the disputing beneficiaries would escalate the conflict.

The court granted the motion, removed the PGT, and appointed a neutral estates lawyer as Estate Trustee during Litigation.

The applicant in a family law proceeding brought a motion for directions regarding the examination of the respondent and non-parties, and for a preservation order under s. 12 of the Family Law Act regarding a fleet of exotic cars.

The respondent argued the examinations should not proceed due to late service of the notice.

The court excused the minor procedural irregularity and ordered the examinations to proceed.

The court also granted the preservation order, finding the applicant had established a prima facie case for an equalization payment and that the respondent was transferring the exotic cars to a third-party corporation to put them beyond her reach.

The appellants, who were self-represented at trial, appealed a Small Claims Court judgment on the basis of procedural unfairness.

At trial, the respondent was permitted to call witnesses without having delivered a witness list in advance.

The trial judge did not advise the self-represented appellants of their right to object or request an adjournment, nor did he explain that their pleadings were not evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge failed in his duty to assist a self-represented litigant, which resulted in a denial of natural justice and a miscarriage of justice.

The self-represented appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment on the basis of procedural unfairness.

At trial, the respondent was permitted to call witnesses despite failing to provide a witness list in advance.

The trial judge did not advise the appellants of their right to object or request an adjournment, nor did he explain that their Statement of Defence was not evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge failed in his duty to assist the self-represented litigants and compounded the unfairness by drawing an adverse inference from their failure to testify.

The applicant husband sought an immediate sale of the matrimonial home, arguing his current accommodation was inadequate and his equity was being eroded.

The respondent wife opposed the sale, seeking to buy out the husband's interest after determination of equalization and child support.

The court found the motion for immediate sale premature, as the applicant had not pleaded the Partition Act, which is the primary basis for such an order outside specific Family Law Act circumstances.

The court also considered the children's best interests and the financial positions of the spouses, noting significant financial disclosure issues and conflicting property valuations.

The motion was adjourned, with orders for the applicant to amend pleadings, for both parties to provide full financial disclosure, for a joint property valuation, and for the applicant to pay temporary and retroactive child support.

The plaintiff, Frederick Fischer, moved for summary judgment against the vendor and real estate agents involved in his purchase of a property previously used as a marijuana grow operation, a latent defect not disclosed to him.

He alleged fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring trial, including whether the buyer's agent knew about the grow-op, the source of information provided to the buyer, and the extent of damages suffered by the plaintiff, particularly regarding the property's marketability and mold remediation costs.

The court also granted leave for the plaintiff to amend his claim to explicitly include negligent misrepresentation.

The plaintiff requested a telephone conference to settle the form of an order made at a previous motion.

The defendants' counsel of record had declined to approve the draft order because his retainer was terminated and the corporate defendant intended to act in person.

The court held that because the corporate defendant had not obtained leave to act in person and the lawyer had not been removed from the record, the lawyer had a professional obligation to approve the draft order as to form and content.

The court signed the draft order.

The Ministry moved to quash an application for judicial review brought by a Drive Clean facility and its owner.

The applicants sought to review an arbitrator's decision upholding the termination of their accreditation and certification for falsifying test results.

The Ministry argued the court lacked jurisdiction due to a mandatory arbitration clause in the Performance Contract.

The court found that while the accreditation process is a licensing system, there was no legislative intent in the Environmental Protection Act to override the mandatory arbitration clause.

The application for judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success and was quashed.

The applicant, Uzma Shahid, sought preservation and transfer of assets from her estranged husband, Shahid Ayyub, and his business associate, Nadeem Ahmed, alleging asset depletion and fraud.

Mr. Ayyub had defaulted in the main application.

The court found that Mr. Ahmed had received substantial funds from Mr. Ayyub, which Ms. Shahid alleged were proceeds of fraud due to forged signatures on investment agreements.

The court drew an adverse inference from Mr. Ahmed's incomplete disclosure and ordered the continuation of asset freezing and the transfer of $128,000 from Mr. Ahmed to Ms. Shahid's solicitor as security for child support, spousal support, and equalization payments.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The insured was involved in two motor vehicle accidents and claimed statutory accident benefits.

After disputes arose, the insured elected to have her claims determined by a FSCO arbitrator.

The parties attended a settlement meeting where the insured signed a release for $165,000, but she subsequently sought to rescind the settlement, claiming she did not understand its finality.

The insurer applied to the Superior Court of Justice for a declaration that a binding settlement was reached.

The court dismissed the application, holding that under the Insurance Act, once an insured elects arbitration, the FSCO arbitrator has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all questions of fact and law, including whether a binding settlement was reached and whether it was validly rescinded.

The defendants, William and Mary Wade, sought an extension of time to bring a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against them, alleging that trees on their property obstructed visibility at an intersection where a serious motor vehicle collision occurred.

The plaintiffs, the Greens, opposed the extension.

The court dismissed the Wades' motion, finding substantial delay without satisfactory explanation, significant prejudice to the plaintiffs, and a risk of inconsistent factual findings if the summary judgment motion proceeded.

The court emphasized that the novel legal question of a private property owner's duty of care to motorists on adjacent roadways is best determined at a full trial, aligning with principles of proportionality, timeliness, and affordability.

The applicant, Ms. Cheng, sought to lift a stay of proceedings in Ontario to pursue claims for child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent, Mr. Liu, had previously obtained a divorce in China after initiating proceedings there, which led to the Ontario action being stayed on condition of his cooperation in China.

Mr. Liu breached this condition by providing false financial disclosure to the Chinese court, which subsequently granted the divorce but explicitly declined jurisdiction over economic issues, deferring them to Canada.

The court found that it retained jurisdiction over the corollary relief, distinguishing the precedent of Okmyansky v. Okmyansky.

The decision emphasized that jurisdiction is determined at the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Liu's breach of conditions and fraudulent disclosure, China's explicit declination of jurisdiction, and the doctrine of forum of necessity.

The applicant sought interim child support and sale of the matrimonial home, while the respondent sought to vary a non-dissipation order and for leave to dispose of his dental clinic interest.

The court determined the respondent's income for child support purposes by averaging his expert's valuations from 2013-2015, ordering retroactive and ongoing temporary child support.

The motion for occupancy rent was adjourned pending the sale of the matrimonial home, and the respondent's motion to vary the non-dissipation order was also adjourned.

This decision addresses a re-attendance following a previous court order concerning the payment of post-secondary tuition expenses for the parties' daughter, Letysha, and claims for special and extraordinary expenses for their other child, Shyan.

The court found that the Applicant, Ms. Dorsett, had failed to use funds garnished from the Respondent, Mr. Levy, for Letysha's tuition to repay student loans.

Consequently, Ms. Dorsett was ordered to repay the entire outstanding balance of Letysha's student loan ($7,855.27) without further contribution from Mr. Levy.

Mr. Levy was ordered to pay $2,310 as his 70% contribution to Shyan's s.7 expenses.

The court also imposed conditions for future s.7 expense claims and communication between the parties.

This decision addresses Byron Levy's request for reimbursement of child support contributions for his eldest daughter's college tuition, which were garnished from his wages.

The court found that Maureen Dorsett, the recipient of these funds, breached a trust by using them for rent instead of tuition or student loan repayment.

The court ordered Ms. Dorsett to pay the identified misapplied funds to the colleges or the National Student Loans Service Centre (NSLSC) and to provide further documentation for other disputed amounts.

The decision also clarified the remaining financial obligations of both parents for the daughter's education expenses under section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The defendant 1623242 Ontario Inc. sought leave to bring a motion for summary judgment to dismiss construction lien actions against it, or to discharge the liens.

The plaintiff Great Lakes Copper Inc. opposed this, arguing that the issues involved disputed facts and would not substantially shorten a trial.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion for leave, finding that bifurcating the trial or granting leave for summary judgment would not be in the interests of justice due to the inter-dependence of factual and legal issues, and the novelty of the legal questions concerning environmental contamination and owner's liability under the Construction Lien Act.

The plaintiff, Kuldip Jhawer, sought summary judgment to enforce a mortgage against the defendants, Harinder Singh and Rajwinder Aujla, which secured a $130,000 loan.

The defendants denied the mortgage's validity, claiming no funds were advanced and alleging fraud, and counterclaimed for set-off based on unrelated property transactions.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff on the mortgage claim, finding conclusive evidence of the loan's advancement, but dismissed the plaintiff's motion to strike the counterclaim, ordering it to proceed to a separate trial as it was not intrinsically related to the mortgage and did not qualify for legal or equitable set-off.