Eberhard

Following a bifurcated trial regarding the departure of financial advisors and the valuation of a business, the successful plaintiffs sought costs.

The court found that while formal Rule 49 offers were not triggered, the defendants' reprehensible and deceitful conduct prior to litigation, as well as their refusal to admit facts during the trial, warranted an enhanced costs award.

Costs were fixed at $160,000, payable jointly and severally by two of the defendants.

A third defendant, against whom liability was found but no damages were sought, was not held liable for costs.

The plaintiff vendor moved for summary judgment for damages arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The defendant purchaser failed to close on the agreed date and requested an extension, which the vendor refused after counter-offers were not accepted.

The purchaser argued the vendor failed to mitigate by not granting the extension.

The court rejected this argument, applying appellate authority that a vendor is not obliged to mitigate by reselling to the defaulting purchaser.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff for damages, with the deposit forfeited and applied to the damages, and pre-judgment interest awarded at the contractual rate of 12%.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order regarding child custody, access, and support.

The respondent father sought shared custody and the rescission of child support arrears.

The court found the father lacked the personality and stability required for shared custody, noting his history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and failure to pay child support.

The court ordered primary residence to remain with the mother, set a specific alternate weekend access schedule for the father, and refused to rescind the child support arrears, though it reduced them slightly due to a past injury.

The father brought a motion to change the primary care of his five-year-old son from the mother in Orillia to himself in London.

The child had previously been in week-about care until starting school.

A privately retained assessor recommended the father assume primary care due to the mother's struggles with effective discipline and controlling her household.

The court weighed the benefits of the father's consistent parenting against the risk of separating the child from his mother and siblings.

The court granted the motion, finding that the child's need for consistent discipline to self-regulate his behaviour was paramount, and ordered primary care to the father with a detailed access schedule for the mother.

The applicant father and respondent mother engaged in a high-conflict family law trial regarding parenting, child support, and property division.

The court found that the mother's unrelenting insistence on her methods and values, and her pursuit of confrontation, caused the children to be in need of protection.

Despite the father's request for shared custody based on parental alienation, the court ordered joint custody with primary residence to the mother, but carved out final decision-making for extracurricular sports to the father to prevent his exclusion.

The court imposed a strict parenting schedule, mandated reconciliation counselling and a parenting coach, and ordered child support and equalization payments.

The plaintiff, Graydon Cragg, funded and established a financial services business through his corporation, 1350369 Ontario Inc. The defendants, Tom Jarvis and Darren O'Halloran, managed the business and developed its client base.

In 2005, the defendants abruptly left the business, taking the client files and staff to set up a competing operation.

The court found that Jarvis and O'Halloran were employees and fiduciaries of the plaintiff's business, not independent contractors.

By taking the book of business without compensating the plaintiff, they breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched.

The court directed a business valuation to determine damages.

The parties separated after a lengthy marriage.

The husband worked in an unregistered firewood business with his father and lived rent-free in a home titled to his parents.

The court found the husband's income was $100,000, accounting for unreported cash and personal benefits.

The court also found the husband had a 50% partnership interest in the business and a $100,000 beneficial interest in the home via constructive trust, both of which were included in his net family property.

The wife was awarded an equalization payment of $285,862.24, ongoing spousal support, and child support for their daughter's post-secondary education.

The applicant sought leave to add the respondent's wife as a party, to question her, and to amend her application to include a constructive trust claim.

The applicant and respondent had a long personal relationship and children together, while the respondent maintained a double life, remaining married to his wife.

The court dismissed the motion to add the wife as a party, finding no direct link between the applicant's contributions and the wife's property, and noting it would unnecessarily complicate the litigation.

The motion to amend the claim was also dismissed, as the proposed constructive trust claim appeared to be statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, though the applicant was permitted to explore tracing of funds during the respondent's questioning.

The Crown sought to admit a statement made by the accused during a police interview.

The defence argued the statement was involuntary due to oppressive circumstances and that the police ignored the accused's assertions of his right to remain silent.

The court reviewed the interview and found no objective evidence of oppression, threats, or inducements.

Although the accused asserted his right to silence multiple times, the police officer continued to speak, using legitimate persuasion without denying the accused's right to choose or depriving him of an operating mind.

The court concluded the statement was voluntary and admissible.