Dawood Asad Ahmad

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary order to increase his parenting time and allow for unsupervised access.

The applicant mother opposed, arguing no material change in circumstances and citing the father's recent assault conviction against their daughter.

The court found that the filing of the OCL report and the conclusion of the father's criminal trial constituted a material change.

Considering the children's best interests, the father's rehabilitation efforts, and the OCL's positive observations of his interactions with the children, the court granted the father's motion, establishing a progressive schedule for unsupervised parenting time and ordering the mother to pay costs.

The moving party brought a motion for the production of documents and information relating to two of the responding party's accounts: an investment account and a bank account.

The court found that the responding party had sufficiently answered the request regarding the investment account.

Regarding the bank account, the court ordered the responding party to provide an affidavit clarifying whether the account into which deposits were made was closed, or whether the account from which corresponding withdrawals were made was closed.

The motion was largely dismissed, and the responding party was awarded costs of $2,000.

This decision provides supplementary reasons for a costs order following a successful motion by the plaintiff concerning discovery questions.

The plaintiff was successful on 77 out of 78 questions related to undertakings, questions taken under advisement, and refusals.

The court found the defendants' conduct unreasonable, particularly their refusal to comply with undertakings based on "subsequent developments." The defendants' argument against proportionality of costs was rejected as a bald assertion without detail.

The court found the plaintiff's bill of costs reasonable, noting that much of the work was necessitated by the defendants' non-compliance with court orders and deadlines.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

Following a previous endorsement, the successful defendant sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff opposed the costs award.

Applying the principles from Boucher and Rule 57, the court determined that the fixing of costs is not a mechanical exercise but must result in a fair and reasonable amount.

The court fixed the defendant's costs at $7,500 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The appellant appealed the calculation of damages from a successful summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal against his former employer.

He argued the motions judge erred by not awarding overtime, statutory holiday, and vacation pay.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's finding that the parties agreed to average hours of work, despite the employer's technical non-compliance with the notice requirements of the Canada Labour Code.

The court found the non-compliance caused no prejudice to the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's negligence claim regarding a defective fireplace installation, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The plaintiff argued the limitation period did not begin until the defendant refused to remediate the issue.

The court found that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the material facts to base an allegation of negligence upon receiving an inspection report in December 2010.

As the action was not commenced until November 2014, well beyond the two-year limitation period, the court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the action.

Following a proceeding, the successful defendant submitted a costs outline.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including proportionality, time spent, and complexity.

Applying the principles from Boucher and Davies, the court fixed costs at an amount fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay $3,500 all-inclusive to the successful defendant.

The Plaintiffs discontinued their action against the Defendant Computershare Trust Company of Canada c/o First National Financial LP ("First National").

First National then brought a motion for costs, seeking $11,094.45.

The remaining Defendants, Mark Hamelin and Tracy Hamelin, supported First National's request.

The Plaintiffs opposed the motion.

The court applied the "justified action test" under Rule 23.05 and Rule 57.01, finding that while the Plaintiffs were justified in initially investigating First National's mortgage, they were not justified in continuing their claim seeking priority over First National's Charge.

The court determined that First National was not a proper party to the action as it did not advance a construction mortgage.

Consequently, the Plaintiffs were ordered to pay First National $6,500.00 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The Hamelins' request for costs for responding to the motion was denied.

The plaintiff, Dennis Rego, was terminated by the defendant, Northern Air Solutions Inc., for alleged lack of cooperation in completing required winter operations training.

Following a summary judgment motion, a minitrial was held to determine if the failure to complete training constituted just cause for termination.

The court found that the employer had condoned the lack of training by allowing the plaintiff to continue flying and that, once warned, the plaintiff agreed to complete the training.

Therefore, dismissal was not warranted, and the employer failed to prove just cause.

Damages for breach of contract were awarded, but claims for overtime, aggravated, and punitive damages were dismissed.

The accused, Takin Lahmi, sought a bail review after being detained by a justice of the peace primarily on tertiary and secondary grounds following charges including impaired operation and various firearm offences.

The Superior Court found that the justice of the peace erred in principle and law by misapplying the secondary ground, as the accused had no criminal record or history of breaching undertakings.

Furthermore, the justice of the peace misapplied the tertiary ground by automatically detaining the accused based on the four circumstances in s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code, contrary to the holistic approach mandated by R. v. St. Cloud.

The Crown's subsequent election to proceed summarily significantly reduced the potential sentence and gravity of the offences, further undermining the tertiary ground for detention.

The court concluded that detention was not justified to maintain confidence in the administration of justice and ordered the accused's release on a recognizance with cash deposits and strict conditions.