Donna Macfarlane

The plaintiff, Bosco Roofing, sued for payment for roofing work on a condominium building owned by 1882877 Ontario Inc. The defendant, 1882877 Ontario Inc., counterclaimed for damages due to poor workmanship and project delays.

The court found that Bosco's work constituted a fundamental breach of contract due to significant deficiencies, negating the need for 1882877 Ontario Inc. to provide an opportunity to correct.

While 1882877 Ontario Inc. destroyed evidence by applying a third membrane, the presumption of spoliation was rebutted by the urgency of the project and the expert report.

The delay claims by 1882877 Ontario Inc. were dismissed due to lack of evidence.

Ultimately, Bosco's claim was dismissed, and 1882877 Ontario Inc. was awarded $22,366 on its counterclaim, representing the additional cost incurred to achieve a proper roofing system.

This family law trial addressed a mother's request to relocate with her child, custody arrangements, and child and spousal support.

The court denied the mother's request to move the child's residence more than 100 km from the father, finding it not in the child's best interests due to significant health challenges and the impact on the child's relationship with the father and extended family.

The mother was granted sole custody, with a detailed parenting schedule for the father.

The court ordered the father to pay child support arrears and ongoing support, but dismissed the mother's claim for spousal support, concluding that the parties' relationship, despite having a child, lacked the economic interdependency required for cohabitation under the Family Law Act.

The court also expressed concerns about the Children's Aid Society's investigation process and the tactical use of its involvement by both parents.

The parties separated after a brief cohabitation.

They had one biological child together, and the respondent mother had an older child from a previous relationship.

The court awarded joint custody of the biological child, with primary residence to the respondent mother due to the geographical distance between the parents and the strong sibling bond.

The court also found that the applicant father had demonstrated a settled intention to treat the older child as his own during the relationship, and ordered him to pay a reduced amount of step-parent child support.

During a trial management conference in an ongoing family law proceeding, the parties participated in a teleconference and provided updates regarding the schooling, services, and medical arrangements for their children following a proposed relocation to Simcoe County.

On consent, the court varied an earlier custody order to establish a revised parenting schedule under which the children would reside with the father during weekdays and spend designated weekends with the mother.

The order also addressed school enrollment, transportation arrangements, medical treatment compliance, and counselling requirements for the parties.

The children were deemed to continue primarily residing with the mother for purposes including child tax benefits, and existing child support obligations remained in place.

The custody and access arrangement was ordered to be reviewed at the next resumption of the trial management conference.