Ellen B. Murray

The Family Responsibility Office sought enforcement of substantial child and spousal support arrears totalling $509,516.09 against a self-employed dentist.

The payor's prior support orders had been based on an imputed income of $380,000 annually, but he claimed his income had declined significantly to approximately $92,400 annually.

The court found the payor had not rebutted the presumption of ability to pay and was underemployed by choice.

The court ordered immediate incarceration of 15 days or payment of $25,000 for breach of a temporary default order, and imposed a final default order requiring payment of $175,000 within 30 days (in default of which 120 days incarceration) plus ongoing monthly payments of $2,500 increasing to $3,250 (with 5-day incarceration for each default).

A costs decision following a six-day family law trial concerning custody and access arrangements for a child.

The mother sought costs of $55,234.87 on a full recovery basis, arguing she was significantly more successful on the key issues and made reasonable settlement offers.

The father, a self-represented lawyer, argued success was divided and that his litigation conduct was reasonable.

The court found the mother was more successful on the primary issues (sole custody versus parallel parenting, and access schedule) but reduced her costs award due to her failure to serve a formal offer to settle.

The court awarded costs of $30,000 to the mother.

This is a costs decision following a successful motion by the respondent father under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The father sought and obtained an order that the child be returned to New York State and that a non-removal order obtained by the mother be rescinded.

The father claimed costs at full recovery of $14,956.61.

The court awarded costs of $13,000, finding the father was entitled to costs as the successful party, but reducing the award due to the unnecessary attendance of two counsel at argument and considering the overall reasonableness of the costs incurred.

A youth was convicted of robbery and use of an imitation firearm to commit robbery.

The Crown sought a serious violent offence (SVO) designation and a custodial sentence of 6-8 months.

The defence argued for open custody with substantial credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court found the SVO threshold met and imposed a sentence of 90 days custody followed by 45 days community supervision and 18 months probation, with the custody to be served in an open facility.

The court considered the offender's significant mental health issues, history of instability, lack of remorse, and the serious psychological harm to the victim, balanced against the offender's youth and the rehabilitation plan developed by his support team.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the court considered a motion by the child's lawyer seeking judicial notice of documents regarding conditions in Angola, including UN Human Development Index data, UNICEF reports, and documents from the Immigration and Refugee Board's national documentation package.

The father, subject to a deportation order to Angola, sought to have the children placed in his care with a plan to relocate them to Angola.

The court rejected the motion for judicial notice, finding that the proposed facts were adjudicative in nature and closely approached the central dispositive issue in the case, requiring strict application of the Morgan standard for judicial notice.

The applicant mother sought a stand-alone order for financial disclosure from the respondent father, who is obligated to pay child support under a domestic contract.

The parties had agreed that future disputes concerning child support would be dealt with by arbitration.

The applicant sought the respondent's tax returns, notices of assessment, and financial statements from his company to assist in determining whether to claim a change in child support due to material change in circumstances.

The respondent refused disclosure, arguing it was irrelevant because the support amount was not determined by reference to his income and the parties agreed support would not be varied before January 2016.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that section 25 of the Child Support Guidelines applies only to court orders for child support, not to domestic agreements, even when registered with the court.

The court noted that the applicant could seek disclosure through the pending arbitration process.

Two competing applications concerned whether a municipal site alteration by-law regulating the dumping of fill applied to an aerodrome.

The municipality sought declarations that its by-law requiring a permit and environmental safeguards for fill operations applied to the airport’s grading activities, while the airport operator argued that such regulation intruded on exclusive federal jurisdiction over aeronautics.

Applying the constitutional doctrines governing division of powers and interjurisdictional immunity, the court held that the by-law’s pith and substance concerned environmental protection and land use regulation, matters within provincial jurisdiction.

The by-law did not impair the protected core of federal aeronautics power because it regulated only the quality and management of fill, not the design or operation of runways or airport facilities.

The municipal application was granted and the airport operator’s application was dismissed.

A trial decision concerning custody, access, and child support for a three-year-old child born to unmarried parents who maintained separate homes throughout their relationship.

The applicant sought joint custody under a parallel parenting model with equal decision-making authority in separate domains and significantly increased weekend access.

The respondent sought sole custody with alternate weekend access and mid-week visits.

The court found no evidence of alienating behaviour by the respondent and rejected the parallel parenting model, awarding sole custody to the respondent with restrictions on her decision-making authority, alternate weekend access to the applicant, and a mid-week overnight visit.

Child support was ordered on a proportionate income basis.

The applicant purchaser sought to void a commercial real estate transaction and recover $5.913 million from the respondent vendor, claiming the vendor failed to provide a copy of an environmental Director's Order prior to closing as required by s. 197 of the Environmental Protection Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding on a balance of probabilities that the vendor did provide the order.

Alternatively, the court held that the applicant was estopped from voiding the transaction because its solicitors had represented to the vendor prior to closing that they had no outstanding concerns regarding the receipt of the order.

In a personal injury action involving statutory accident benefits and long-term disability benefits, the automobile insurer cross‑claimed against the long‑term disability insurer for reimbursement of income replacement benefits paid to the insured.

The cross‑claim alleged unjust enrichment, asserting that the LTD insurer should have paid benefits first.

The court held that under s. 7 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule an automobile insurer may deduct LTD payments only if they are actually received or the insured failed to apply for them.

Because the insured applied for LTD benefits and the LTD insurer denied the claim, the automobile insurer could not deduct hypothetical benefits or recover them through unjust enrichment.

The court found no enrichment, no corresponding deprivation, and no unjust retention, and struck the cross‑claim.

The court determined costs following a motion to change parenting arrangements for a 13-year-old child.

The applicant mother was substantially successful in her opposition to the respondent father's motion for temporary custody and overnight access.

The father's motion was converted from an initial contempt allegation to a motion to change.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant mother in the amount of $11,500, considering the factors under the Family Law Rules including the parties' litigation behaviour, the complexity of the issues, and the reasonableness of legal fees.

Sentencing decision for fraud over $5,000 involving a $200,000 investment fraud against a close friend.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, particularly where the offender exploited a personal relationship and failed to show remorse or make restitution.

A conditional sentence was rejected as inappropriate given the magnitude of the fraud and lack of mitigating factors.

The court imposed a custodial sentence, probation, and a restitution order, but declined the Crown’s request for a fine in lieu of forfeiture intended to compel payment of restitution.

Father sought to change a 2004 custody and access order to include overnight stays and international travel with his 13-year-old son Jacob, alleging parental alienation by the mother.

The child, represented by the Office of the Children's Lawyer, opposed the change.

Jacob has Asperger's Syndrome, generalized anxiety disorder, and a non-verbal learning disability, and has consistently refused overnight stays and international travel.

The court found no material change in circumstances warranting the requested modifications and dismissed the father's motion, continuing the temporary daytime access schedule while leaving room for future overnight access if and when the child is ready.

In a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act, the court considered whether a child should be made a Crown ward for adoption or returned to parental care.

The Society sought Crown wardship without access based on concerns about the mother's alcohol consumption.

The court found that while the mother had consumed alcohol excessively during the relevant period, the risk could be adequately managed through an order placing the child in the legal custody of the non-biological father (who had acted as the child's father since birth) under Society supervision, with strict conditions regarding the mother's abstinence and monitoring.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel, which upheld a Hearing Panel's penalty permitting her to surrender her licence, failing which it would be revoked.

The appellant argued the penalty was unreasonable and the Hearing Panel failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the penalty reasonable given the appellant's 43 particulars of professional misconduct, lack of insight, and psychiatric evidence indicating a notoriously difficult-to-treat personality disorder.

The court also held the Hearing Panel's reasons were adequate and permitted meaningful review.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision reinstating a probationary employee.

The employee had been terminated for performance issues shortly after disclosing a struggle with depression.

The Board found the termination was arbitrary and discriminatory.

The Divisional Court quashed the Board's decision, holding that the employer had repeatedly communicated performance expectations and the termination was based on legitimate performance concerns, making the Board's findings of arbitrariness and discrimination unreasonable.

The respondent brought a motion to change child support for Margaret, an adult university student, seeking to terminate or significantly reduce his support obligations.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought arrears of support.

The court determined that support should be calculated under section 3(2)(b) of the Child Support Guidelines rather than the table amount, given Margaret's status as a post-secondary student living away from home.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on his corporation's pre-tax income after disallowing unreasonable personal expense deductions.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $814 monthly commencing July 1, 2013, with retroactive support for the period September 1, 2012 to June 1, 2013 calculated at varying amounts based on the respondent's income in each year.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a committee's decision to issue a verbal caution regarding his conduct during an independent medical examination.

The applicant argued the committee erred by failing to make credibility findings and breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the committee exercises a screening function without jurisdiction to make credibility findings, and that a caution is a remedial measure rather than a disciplinary sanction.

The court found the decision to caution the applicant was reasonable.

A young person was charged with seven offences related to the possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and ammunition seized from a hotel room during a police response to a noise complaint.

The central issue was credibility: whether the accused was in possession of the firearm when police entered the room.

The Crown alleged the accused had the gun in his hand and was attempting to conceal it.

The accused testified he never possessed the gun and only heard it being racked.

The court found the accused guilty of unauthorized possession of a prohibited firearm, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm with ammunition, possession of a prohibited firearm knowing it was not registered, and careless storage of firearm and ammunition.

The court acquitted the accused on the charge of possession of a prohibited device for a dangerous purpose due to insufficient evidence of the requisite mens rea.

A youth was charged with assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace following a stabbing incident.

The accused claimed self-defence.

The court found the accused not guilty of the assault charges due to reasonable doubt regarding who struck first with a knife, but found the accused guilty of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The court held that while the accused's subjective purpose was defensive, the objective circumstances did not establish that the threat was completely inescapable, and carrying a concealed weapon into a public space presented a danger to the public peace.