Donna Wilson

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment awarding the plaintiff $100,000 in damages for the non-consensual posting of an intimate video.

Applying the five-factor test from Mountain View Farms, the court found that the interests of justice favoured setting aside the liability and damages portions of the judgment, as the defendant had an arguable defence regarding the quantum of damages and had moved relatively promptly.

The motion was granted on the condition that the defendant pay $10,000 in costs thrown away, while the permanent injunctions remained in place.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against her ex-boyfriend after he posted an intimate video of her on a pornographic website without her consent.

The court found the defendant liable for breach of confidence, intentional infliction of mental distress, and invasion of privacy (specifically, public disclosure of embarrassing private facts).

Recognizing this as a novel civil claim in Canada, the court awarded the plaintiff the maximum simplified procedure limit of $100,000 in damages, comprising general, aggravated, and punitive damages, along with full indemnity costs and permanent injunctive relief.

The defendant trustee in bankruptcy moved for security for costs against a corporate plaintiff under Rule 56.01(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.

The court held the defendant established good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets, triggering the second stage of the analysis.

However, the plaintiff demonstrated sufficient assets through equity in the shareholder’s condominium and ownership of moulds with significant value.

Alternatively, the court held that even if the plaintiff were impecunious, it would be unjust to order security for costs where the alleged wrongful conduct of the defendant contributed to the plaintiff’s financial circumstances and such an order could prevent the action from proceeding.

The plaintiff and other lien claimants sought a determination of the basic holdback amount under the Construction Lien Act following the sale of a partially completed retirement home project by the defendant mortgagee.

The mortgagee argued the holdback was reduced by payments made to sub-trades during construction.

The court found that the owner violated section 25 of the Act by releasing holdback funds before certificates of completion were issued, and that such a breach could not be cured retroactively.

The court fixed the basic holdback at the full 10% of the value of services and materials provided, plus applicable GST.

The appellant sought an upward variation of child support after a separation agreement had been incorporated into a divorce judgment and the payor's income rose dramatically.

The Supreme Court held that under s. 17(4) of the Divorce Act, a material change in either the condition, means, needs or other circumstances of either former spouse or any child is sufficient to trigger variation; a change in both parental and child circumstances is not required.

The Court further held that once the threshold for variation is met, the judge may reassess child support in light of the present circumstances of the parties and children, while recognizing that child support is the right of the child and that children may benefit from improvements in a parent's standard of living.

The Court restored the chambers judge's increased child support order and held the Court of Appeal had no basis to intervene.