Elliot Berlin

The appellant sought a panel review of a motion judge's order that granted him an extension of time to perfect his appeal.

The appellant failed to perfect the appeal by the extended deadline and sought a further extension.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the panel review motion, finding no error by the motion judge, and dismissed a motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The Registrar was directed to dismiss the appeal for failure to perfect.

The parties separated after an altercation that led to criminal charges against the respondent.

The central issue at trial was determining which party took approximately $405,000 in cash and precious metals from safes in the matrimonial apartment.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that the applicant took the assets.

The court calculated the equalization payment and post-separation adjustments, ordering the applicant to pay the respondent $233,363.02.

The court also imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes, ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, and dismissed the respondent's claim for spousal support.

The plaintiff, 385277 Ontario Ltd., sought costs incurred on a contempt motion where the defendants were found to be in contempt of two previous court orders.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the importance and complexity of the matter, counsel's experience, hours spent, proportionality, and the defendants' conduct.

Given the defendants' wilful defiance of court orders and their failure to make costs submissions, the court found the plaintiff's requested costs reasonable and proportionate.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis, with leave for the plaintiff to seek a top-up to substantial or full indemnity after trial.

The plaintiffs moved for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants, who were former tenants of a farm property, from continuing an online harassment campaign against the landlord's principal.

The defendants had posted numerous YouTube videos containing threats, defamatory statements, and vulgar language aimed at coercing a settlement.

The court recognized the emerging tort of internet harassment and granted the injunction, finding that the defendants' conduct was intended to cause fear and anxiety and went beyond the bounds of decency.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce a final family law order for child support, section 7 expenses, and costs by garnishing the respondent's Retirement Life Income Fund (RLIF).

The court held that under section 66(4) of the Pension Benefits Act, the amount subject to execution for support orders is limited to 50% of the money payable to the respondent in a given year.

The court ordered the respondent to elect the maximum annual withdrawal from his RLIF and direct 50% of the net amount to the applicant until the arrears and $30,000 in fixed costs are satisfied.

The applicant's request for an advance order on future section 7 expenses was dismissed.

The parties separated shortly after the respondent's employment was terminated.

He received a severance package that included common law damages and Employment Standards Act (ESA) severance.

The trial judge held that the ESA severance portion had fully accrued before the marriage and was therefore property owned by the respondent on the date of marriage.

The Court of Appeal allowed the wife's appeal on this issue, holding that an employee has no right or entitlement to ESA severance until their employment is terminated without notice.

Therefore, the uncrystallized ESA severance was not property owned by the respondent on the date of marriage.

The appeal was dismissed on all other grounds relating to business valuation, household items, and imputed income.

The applicant, a Quality Control Inspector, suffered injuries from a slip and fall and required a six-week medical leave.

During her absence, the respondent employer failed to issue a Record of Employment (ROE) to allow her to access sickness benefits, insisting she complete a standard form despite her disability.

Upon her return, the employer presented her with a new employment contract that purported to hire her as a new employee, which she refused to sign.

She was laid off shortly thereafter.

The Tribunal found that the failure to accommodate her request for an ROE and the attempt to rewrite her employment contract constituted discrimination on the basis of disability.

While the Tribunal accepted that the employer was undergoing a legitimate workforce reduction, it found that the applicant's disability played a role in her selection for layoff.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 in monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the employer to conduct human rights training.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission disqualifying a horse for a positive drug test and suspending and fining its trainer.

The trainer argued the positive test resulted from contamination or an unknown metabolic process of a permitted drug, and that the Commission applied an absolute liability standard.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission's rejection of the contamination theory was not patently unreasonable and that the trainer breached the standard of care by failing to keep adequate medical records.

The court also rejected the argument that the tribunal Chair's questioning of the trainer was unfair.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision refusing to decide a certiorari application regarding an interlocutory order for severance made by a Justice of the Peace.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that certiorari should not substitute for the lack of a statutory appeal from an interlocutory order.

The Court also found the anticipatory Charter breach claim premature, noting the trial judge is best positioned to decide severance.

The appellant challenged an order requiring it, as an income source for a support payor, to remit support enforcement funds to the respondent.

The appellant accepted that the evidentiary findings against it were supported but argued that the court should nonetheless have made a reasonable estimate of income despite missing disclosure.

The Court of Appeal held that, given the appellant's knowledge of the substantial claim and its failure to produce documents that could resolve the dispute, the judge was entitled to draw an adverse inference and accept the amount claimed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.