David G. Price

The applicant mother brought a motion to vary a temporary custody and access order to allow the children to transfer to schools near her residence, based on the recommendations of an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) clinical investigation report.

The respondent father opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion for various relief, arguing the OCL report should be tested at trial.

The court found that the completion of the OCL report and the father's undermining behaviour constituted a material change in circumstances.

Finding exceptional circumstances that required immediate action in the children's best interests, the court granted the mother's motion, ordered the school transfer, and adjusted the father's access schedule accordingly.

In an uncontested trial, the applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and various orders including a police enforcement clause for access.

The court granted sole custody to the mother and ordered the father to pay ongoing and retroactive child support based on an imputed income of $64,000, as well as his proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

The court extensively reviewed the jurisprudence on police enforcement clauses and declined to order one, finding it was not in the child's best interests given the child's vulnerability and the father's history of unmanaged anger.

The court also ordered the father to pay his share of joint debt and awarded full costs to the mother.

The applicant father sought a provisional order under the Divorce Act to vary his child and spousal support obligations, as the respondent mother resided in New Brunswick and did not attorn to Ontario's jurisdiction.

The father argued that child support should be terminated for their two adult children because one had moved in with him and secured full-time employment, and the other had taken a hiatus from her studies before returning to university.

He also sought to terminate spousal support due to the mother's remarriage.

The court admitted the father's hearsay evidence as necessary and reliable for a provisional hearing.

The court found material changes in circumstances, terminating child support for the son, suspending and then reinstating child support for the daughter, and reducing spousal support by 20 percent annually.

The provisional order was made subject to confirmation by the New Brunswick court.

The landlord brought an unsuccessful motion to quash the tenants' appeal from an eviction order.

The tenants sought costs of the motion.

The court found that the landlord acted unreasonably by pursuing the motion when it knew the eviction order was based on the false premise that the tenants' complaints to government officials were unfounded.

The court awarded costs to the tenants in the amount of $17,337.71, reflecting the actual hourly rates charged by their counsel, which were lower than the maximum partial indemnity rates.

A spouse in a 30‑year common law relationship sought temporary spousal support following separation, alleging the respondent failed to make full financial disclosure and understated his income through a closely‑held corporation.

The respondent asserted a dramatic decline in business income and inability to pay support.

The court held that incomplete disclosure justified drawing an adverse inference and applying the Federal Child Support Guidelines methodology using the respondent’s three‑year average Line 150 income.

The court rejected the claimed current income and ordered temporary spousal support based on the historical income average, together with extensive disclosure obligations and valuation of the respondent’s business and income.

During a family law proceeding, the responding spouse convened a teleconference to address disclosure issues arising from a prior consent order requiring financial disclosure.

The other party had failed to produce several required documents, including tax returns, proof of business income, and bank and credit card statements.

The court rejected the request for a 30‑day extension, noting the party could have complied with the prior order by providing an affidavit detailing efforts to obtain the documents and authorizing third parties to produce them.

The court ordered compliance within two weeks and granted leave to the other party to bring a motion to strike pleadings on financial issues if disclosure was not provided.

The applicant mother brought a motion to vary a temporary, without prejudice consent order that had placed the children in the primary care of the respondent father and paternal grandparents due to the mother's drug addiction and PTSD.

After three years of treatment, the mother sought temporary sole custody.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer recommended returning the children to the mother, citing the father's ongoing substance abuse issues and the grandparents' inability to co-parent with the mother.

The court held that because the prior order was made on a 'without prejudice' basis, the mother was not required to prove a material change in circumstances under s. 29 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court also ruled that a critique of the OCL report tendered by the father was inadmissible.

Finding that the mother was best equipped to meet the children's needs and foster their relationship with the father's family, the court granted temporary sole custody to the mother with a specified access schedule for the respondents.

The defendant sought costs arising from a case conference made necessary after the parties failed to comply with a court-ordered timetable for advancing the litigation.

The plaintiff had failed to serve and file an amended statement of claim within the required time, resulting in delays, unnecessary correspondence between counsel, and the cancellation of a scheduled pre-trial conference.

The court found the delay primarily attributable to the plaintiff and his counsel, and also criticized uncivil communications between counsel which contributed to wasted steps and increased costs.

The court held the defendant was entitled to wasted costs incurred due to the plaintiff’s non-compliance with the timetable.

The court fixed costs at $4,909.85 and directed further steps to determine whether some or all of those costs should be paid personally by the plaintiff’s counsel under Rule 57.07.

This costs endorsement followed motions arising out of a foreclosure action, related construction lien actions, and a fraud action concerning contaminated industrial property.

The moving parties sought to discharge or assign a mortgage by paying principal, interest, and limited costs, while the mortgagee resisted and sought broader recovery.

After divided success on the underlying motions, the court held that neither side should recover costs of the motions.

No costs were awarded.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's claim for the balance owing on a share purchase agreement due to fraudulent misrepresentation, the court determined the costs payable to the self-represented respondents.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale because the application was devoid of merit and tainted by fraud.

The court adjusted the lawyers' hourly rates for inflation, allowed costs for time spent in pre-litigation settlement negotiations, and awarded compensation for the time the individual respondent spent representing himself, fixing total costs at $12,000.

Application and cross‑application concerning the validity of a life insurance change‑of‑beneficiary form executed shortly before the insured’s death.

The applicant sought a declaration that the 2011 form reallocating most of the insurance proceeds to her was valid, or alternatively rectification of the form.

The court held the form was not a valid declaration under the Insurance Act because the allocation percentages were altered after signing and the applicant failed to prove the insured signed the form as altered.

The court also found numerous suspicious circumstances surrounding the preparation of the document, rebutting the presumption that the insured knew and approved its contents.

The applicant failed to establish knowledge and approval or that the form reflected the insured’s true testamentary intentions.

The applicant father brought a contempt motion alleging that the respondent mother breached a final parenting order by unilaterally withholding his court‑ordered access to the parties’ children and imposing supervised daytime contact.

The respondent cross‑moved seeking directions to bring a motion to change the order and requesting supervised access pending the motion.

Applying the three‑part contempt test, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent deliberately breached a clear access order without lawful justification.

The evidence did not establish a serious risk of harm to the children that could justify unilateral non‑compliance.

The court ordered the respondent to resume compliance and provide make‑up parenting time, granted leave to bring a motion to change in accordance with the Family Law Rules, and requested updated involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The court determined costs arising from a successful motion to set aside a default judgment in a mortgage dispute.

Although the defendant succeeded in setting aside the default judgment due to improper service and entitlement to an accounting, the plaintiff later obtained summary judgment on the underlying debt.

Applying Rule 57.01 and principles of proportionality, the court assessed reasonable partial indemnity costs for both counsel fees incurred and limited compensation for time spent by the self‑represented litigant.

The court rejected portions of the defendant’s claimed self‑represented costs as excessive and emphasized reasonable expectations and proportionality relative to the modest amount in dispute.

In a motor vehicle personal injury action, the plaintiff sought an order compelling the tortfeasor’s insurer, added as a statutory third party after denying coverage, to answer written interrogatories and deliver an affidavit of documents explaining the basis for its denial of coverage.

The information was sought to determine whether the insurer’s liability was reduced to the statutory minimum by operation of law, which would affect the plaintiff’s entitlement to underinsured coverage under the OPCF 44R endorsement from his own insurer.

The court held that the facts underlying the denial of coverage were relevant to the plaintiff’s claim for underinsured motorist coverage and fell within the rationale of Rule 31.06(4) concerning disclosure of insurance and conditions affecting its availability.

The statutory third party insurer could not refuse discovery wholesale on the basis of privity or potential prejudice, though it could raise privilege or prejudice objections on a question‑by‑question basis.

The court ordered the insurer to answer the interrogatories and produce a sworn affidavit of documents.

The defendant employer brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a wrongful dismissal action commenced by a former employee.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding claims of constructive dismissal and wrongful dismissal because the employee accepted the contractual terms and the employer had terminated employment without cause pursuant to the contract.

However, the court determined that the employer failed to pay the statutory severance required under the Canada Labour Code for federally regulated employees.

The court held it had concurrent jurisdiction with administrative processes under the Code and granted summary judgment in favour of the employee for the statutory severance amount and prejudgment interest, while dismissing claims for punitive damages.

The remainder of the action was dismissed.

At a trial management conference in a family law property dispute between former common-law partners, the applicant sought a declaration of constructive trust over the respondent’s property and retroactive rent for a residence he rented during their relationship.

The applicant failed to comply with prior disclosure orders and failed to obtain a valuation report that met the court’s earlier directions.

The court exercised its authority under the Family Law Rules to give directions following the adjournment of the conference caused by the applicant’s non-compliance.

The court prohibited the applicant from relying on the deficient valuation and granted the respondent leave to bring a motion for summary judgment or, alternatively, security for costs.

Costs of the wasted appearance were awarded against the applicant.

In an estate dispute involving dual wills and a probate objection, the court considered whether a prior rectification decision foreclosed further inquiry into validity.

The court held that rectification and proof in solemn form are distinct, and that the probate court's inquisitorial jurisdiction permitted it to require both wills to be proven in solemn form, including a secondary will not separately submitted for probate.

Applying issue estoppel, the court treated prior findings that the testatrix neither read nor approved the secondary will as binding.

Because knowledge and approval were absent, the secondary will was declared invalid, while the validity of the primary will was directed to a short trial.

The applicant sought a certificate of appointment as estate trustee for the primary will of the deceased.

A previous court order had rectified the deceased's secondary will, finding that the deceased had not read it.

The court held that it had the inquisitorial jurisdiction to require both wills to be proven in solemn form, despite the lack of a formal objection to the secondary will.

Applying issue estoppel, the court was bound by the previous finding that the deceased did not read or approve the secondary will, rendering it invalid.

The validity of the primary will was ordered to be determined at a short trial.

The moving party father applied to vary a 2005 consent order to terminate child support for two adult children, reduce support for the youngest child, and rescind arrears of approximately $55,000.

The responding party mother opposed the reduction and rescission.

The court noted that the 2005 order permitted the filing of minutes of settlement with the Family Responsibility Office but did not explicitly order child support.

The court raised concerns about its jurisdiction to vary the agreement under the Family Law Act, as the agreement was not filed in the Ontario Court of Justice or the Family Court branch.

The court adjourned the motion to invite submissions from the Family Responsibility Office on the jurisdictional issue.

The landlord moved to quash the tenants' appeal of an eviction order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenants argued the Board Member demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias and made palpable errors of fact by ignoring a Fire Marshall's email confirming fire code deficiencies.

The Divisional Court found that the tenants' appeal raised legitimate questions of law regarding both bias and palpable errors of fact.

The landlord's motion to quash the appeal was dismissed.