David Price

The plaintiffs brought a motion to remove the defendants' counsel due to a conflict of interest, and a separate motion for leave to commence a derivative action on behalf of the Hindu Sabha Temple.

The defendants requested an adjournment of both motions, arguing that the motion to remove counsel could not be heard before or concurrently with the derivative action motion.

The court granted the adjournment, reserving costs, to allow both motions to be heard together at a later date, citing the procedural necessity of determining the derivative action motion first to establish the basis for the conflict motion.

This decision addresses the costs of previous motions concerning child access and financial disclosure.

The applicant, Mr. Leybourne, sought increased access to his daughter and financial disclosure, while the respondent, Ms. Powell, sought to restrict his access.

The court found Mr. Leybourne's offer to settle more favourable than the outcome and deemed Ms. Powell's conduct unreasonable for bringing an urgent motion and making unsubstantiated allegations.

Consequently, Mr. Leybourne was awarded costs on a full recovery basis.

The non-parties, Jason Bradimore and Straight Forward Auto Service Inc., moved to set aside a preservation order concerning exotic cars, arguing lack of notice and that the cars were not beneficially owned by the respondent, Stewart Wilson, but by his Trustee in Bankruptcy or their joint venture.

The court found that the non-parties had proper notice through their counsel and that the cars were effectively Wilson's property in name only, exhibiting "badges of fraud" in their transfer.

The motion to set aside the preservation order was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

This case addresses a dispute between separated parents over the choice of school for their two daughters.

The applicant father sought to keep the children in their current school, St. Elizabeth Seton, which they had attended since Junior Kindergarten.

The respondent mother wished to transfer them to St. Edmund, a school closer to her parents' home, citing a shorter commute and higher Fraser Institute rankings.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" principle, found no compelling reason to change schools.

It prioritized the children's established friendships, stable environment, and relationship with the father over the mother's preferences and the academic rankings.

The court also critiqued the reliance on Fraser Institute rankings without expert evidence and noted the diminished weight of the OCL report due to lack of cross-examination.

The father's position was upheld, and the mother was ordered to pay costs.

The applicant sought expanded access to the parties' child, while the respondent moved for summary judgment granting her sole custody.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion for expanded access and granted the respondent's motion for sole custody, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding custody and access.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests, the respondent's role as primary caregiver, and the applicant's inconsistent access, lack of stable accommodation, and failure to address support obligations and parental conflict.

The applicant, Beverley Hathway, sought spousal support, medical/dental coverage, life insurance designation, and costs from the respondent, Richard Hathway.

The trial proceeded undefended due to the respondent's failure to deliver an Answer or file a Financial Statement.

The court found the applicant entitled to both compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, having suffered economic disadvantage by resigning from her employment to reside with the respondent in Florida and experiencing financial hardship upon separation.

A lump sum spousal support of $60,019.00 was awarded, along with orders for the respondent to maintain medical and dental coverage, irrevocably designate the applicant as a life insurance beneficiary to the extent of the support obligation, and establish a first charge on his RCMP pension survivor benefits.

The applicant was also awarded costs on a full recovery basis due to the respondent's unreasonable conduct and lack of participation.

The respondent, Maria Preciosa Ramos Doforno Sutton, brought a motion for interim spousal support and further financial disclosure from the applicant, Ronald John Sutton, following a 35-year marriage and separation in 2010.

The court found Ms. Sutton entitled to compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support due to her contributions to the marriage, economic disadvantage, and current health issues preventing self-sufficiency.

Mr. Sutton's arguments regarding Ms. Sutton's modest lifestyle in Portugal and the inadmissibility of an internet article on cost of living were rejected.

The court ordered Mr. Sutton to pay interim spousal support at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and to provide extensive financial disclosure regarding his assets, debts, and business interests.

This case conference addressed multiple motions in ongoing construction lien actions.

The plaintiff sought orders for substituted service of a Summons to Witness and a remedy for the defendant's failure to deliver will-say statements.

The defendant sought production of evidence for a personal costs claim against its counsel and a determination on the preclusive effect of a prior order on costs.

The court addressed the requirements for will-say statements, clarified the scope of a previous preclusion order, and deemed the personal costs claim premature, to be addressed by the trial judge.

The applicant, Nadia Hosein, brought a motion seeking enforcement of a previous parenting order, an updated s. 30 assessment of the children's needs, and sanctions against the respondent, Anoop Dhamoon, for breaching court orders and engaging in parental alienation.

The respondent sought to dismiss or stay the applicant's motion due to unpaid costs and opposed the other requests.

The court found that the applicant had substantially complied with past costs orders, that the respondent had breached the parenting order and engaged in parental alienation, and ordered an updated s. 30 assessment, therapy for the applicant and the eldest child, strict compliance with the previous access order, and costs against the respondent.

The respondents (corporate moving parties) sought to vary or set aside an August 9, 2016 order appointing an auditor, pursuant to Rule 59.06(a) and (b), alleging fraud or mistake due to undisclosed facts by the original applicants (now respondents to this motion).

The undisclosed facts included audit waivers signed by a principal of the original applicants, his criminal conviction, and consumer proposal.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the original applicants were not obliged to disclose these facts as the motion was on notice, the respondents could have discovered them with reasonable diligence, and the facts would not have altered the outcome as the audit was ordered in the interests of justice, not based on an automatic statutory right.

The court affirmed a shareholder's right to audited financial statements as a fundamental check on financial mismanagement.

The applicant, Wilcason Bullock, moved to vary a 2012 child support order, claiming reduced income and that his children were no longer "children of the marriage." The respondent, Michelle Bullock, moved to dismiss his variation motion due to his repeated breaches of multiple court orders, including non-payment of support arrears, non-payment of interest on costs, failure to provide proof of life insurance, and persistent financial non-disclosure.

The court found that the applicant deliberately breached these orders, which undermined the respondent's ability to respond to his motion and secure a fair determination of the issues.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion to vary, ordered him to redeem his RRSP to reduce arrears, and pay the respondent's costs.

The defendant WR Property Service Inc. brought a motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall personal injury action.

The Morguard defendants, co-defendants in the action, requested an adjournment of WR's summary judgment motion and the upcoming trial, arguing they had insufficient time to prepare a proper response, including securing an affidavit and conducting cross-examinations.

The court granted the adjournment, finding that denying it would cause significant prejudice to the Morguard defendants by preventing them from fully presenting their case, and that the interests of justice in resolving the matter on its merits outweighed the delay.

The self-represented plaintiff, Paul Taylor, sued the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board (WSIB) and the Workplace Safety & Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) for approximately $17 million, alleging bad faith, breaches of the Human Rights Code and the Charter of Rights, and various torts related to the handling of his workplace injury benefits claim.

The WSIAT brought a motion to dismiss the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, or to strike the pleadings for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter, the WSIAT lacked legal capacity to be sued, the action constituted an abuse of process by attempting to re-litigate issues already decided by the Tribunal, the claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action (including for assault and misfeasance of public office), and the claims were statute-barred.

Leave to amend the statement of claim was denied, and the statement of claim was struck in its entirety.

The Respondent/Father brought an urgent motion to vary an existing custody order, seeking sole custody of their 14-year-old son (XR) due to mental health concerns and self-harm behaviors.

The Applicant/Mother opposed.

The court ordered XR to return to the Mother's home, requested the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) to re-assign counsel for XR, directed continued CAS services, and adjourned the Father's motion to vary custody to a case conference.

Medical and police records related to XR were ordered sealed in the court file.

Angela Piccone and her husband sought an order to extend the time for service of their Statement of Claim on North Country Property Maintenance Inc. due to improper initial service by their previous lawyer.

North Country opposed, claiming prejudice from the delay.

The court granted the extension, finding that North Country and its insurer had early knowledge of the incident and claim, and the delay was not intentional.

The court determined that the extension would not cause unfair prejudice to North Country and would facilitate access to justice for the plaintiffs.

The applicant father brought a motion for contempt against the respondent mother for unilaterally relocating their three children more than 50 kilometres from Hamilton, contrary to a final mediated agreement and court order, and for restricting his access.

The mother brought a cross-motion for custody and transfer of proceedings, asserting she believed the order was withdrawn and alleging an assault by the father.

The court found the mother in contempt, rejected her justifications and assault allegations, and found her actions detrimental to the children's interests.

The court varied the previous order, granting primary residence of the children to the father and ordering an Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation.

The applicant, Ernest Below, brought a motion for custody of the parties' two young children after the respondent, Stacy Sheene, moved with them from Florida to Ontario.

Sheene had returned to Florida for medical treatment, leaving the children with Below's parents, and intended to return to Florida with the children due to a breakdown in financial support and relationship with Below.

Below obtained a temporary order preventing their removal from Canada.

The court determined it lacked jurisdiction over the custody and access issues, finding that the children's habitual residence remained Florida.

The court declined to exercise jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act, ordered the termination of the temporary order, and directed the children's return to Florida in Ms. Sheene's care, with Mr. Below responsible for travel expenses.

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 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.