Melanie Russell

The plaintiff, a general surgeon, sued the hospital, its chief executive officer, and its chief of staff for defamation and misfeasance in public office after losing his hospital privileges.

The plaintiff alleged that the chief of staff defamed him in a letter and in oral statements, and that the defendants acted in bad faith to oust him from the hospital.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the oral defamatory statements were not proven and that the letter was protected by qualified privilege.

The court held it had jurisdiction to hear the misfeasance claim but dismissed it, finding no evidence of unlawful acts, malice, or improper purpose by the defendants.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.

The parties attended a family law case conference.

The respondent husband revealed for the first time at the conference that he and his partners had sold their business the previous day, despite having negotiated the sale for five months.

The applicant wife sought leave to retain her own Chartered Business Valuator to prepare a comprehensive valuation of the respondent's business interest, which the respondent opposed on the basis that they had previously jointly retained a valuator who provided a calculation valuation.

The court granted the applicant leave to retain her own expert, finding that the respondent failed to comply with his financial disclosure obligations and that the previous calculation valuation provided little assurance of accuracy.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the conference due to his late disclosure, with the amount to be determined.

Following a five-day family trial where the applicant was entirely successful, she sought costs of approximately $350,000 on a full recovery basis.

The court found that the respondent engaged in bad faith conduct, including hiding income, destroying evidence, and fraudulently conveying assets to his mother to defeat the applicant's equalization claim.

Consequently, the court ordered costs on a full recovery basis under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

After adjusting for proportionality and disallowing fees for a second counsel, the court awarded the applicant $250,000 in costs.

Following a 19-year marriage, the court determined unresolved financial issues including income for support, equalization, alleged fraudulent conveyances, lump sum spousal support, and a requested vesting order over the matrimonial home.

The respondent, a self-employed business partner who admitted past undeclared cash income, was found not credible, and the court preferred a lifestyle analysis to impute annual income of $142,000 while imputing minimum wage income to the applicant.

Transfers totalling $349,000 to the respondent's mother during the breakdown of the marriage were found to be fraudulent conveyances and subject to a resulting trust, bringing that value back into net family property.

The court ordered child support of $3,066 monthly, 74.6% contribution to qualifying section 7 expenses, lump sum spousal support of $335,465, and equalization of $342,070.

Because of repeated support defaults and anticipated non-compliance, the respondent's equity in the matrimonial home was vested in the applicant, and the restraining order claim was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, including a software partnership and its investors, brought an action against the Canada Revenue Agency and its agents for negligent investigation, misfeasance in public office, and Charter breaches arising from a tax audit and subsequent criminal investigation into a suspected tax shelter fraud.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the auditor did not cross the line into a criminal investigation improperly, and that the investigators met the standard of care.

The court concluded there was substantial evidence supporting the CRA's belief that the enterprise was a fraudulent tax scheme, and no actionable wrongs were committed by the defendants.

The applicant wife and respondent husband have been litigating their family law matter for over 12 years.

The applicant brought a motion seeking extensive disclosure from the husband and his business partner, $150,000 in interim disbursements under Rule 24(12), and payment of past support and section 7 expenses.

The respondent husband brought a cross-motion seeking disclosure, termination of child support for their 24-year-old daughter, and a variation of a 2008 temporary spousal support order to impute income to the applicant.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion in its entirety, finding she failed to meet the test for interim disbursements and that the disclosure requests were either already satisfied or unsupported by evidence.

The court granted the husband's request to terminate child support as the child was no longer living with either parent and was employed.

The court also ordered the applicant to provide disclosure.

However, the court declined to vary the temporary spousal support order on the eve of trial, directing the parties to proceed to trial in 2018.

The parties separated after a 25-year traditional marriage.

The respondent mother sought interim spousal and child support for their child with cerebral palsy.

The applicant father, a self-employed business owner, failed to provide complete financial disclosure.

Relying on the respondent's expert business valuator, the court imputed an income of $488,000 to the father, grossing up undeclared management fees and discretionary expenses.

The court imputed an income of $40,000 to the mother based on her earning capacity.

The father was ordered to pay $3,764 monthly in child support, $11,374 monthly in spousal support, and 92% of section 7 expenses.

In this high-conflict family law trial, the court determined equalization, child support, and spousal support following a 12-year marriage.

The respondent husband had a history of deceit and hiding assets, complicating the determination of his income and net family property.

The court ordered an equalization payment of over $1 million to the applicant wife, imputed income to both parties, and ordered retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support.

Due to the respondent's conduct, the court ordered a lump sum for ongoing spousal support and secured the equalization payment against his corporate assets.

The parties separated after a 17-year marriage.

The husband's father brought an action to enforce an $800,000 mortgage registered against the matrimonial home, which was consolidated with the family law proceedings.

The court found the mortgage was a sham designed to protect the husband's equity and dismissed the father's claim against the wife.

In the family law action, the court determined the date of separation, valued the husband's corporate interests, and found the husband had manipulated his business affairs to defeat the wife's claims.

The court imputed an annual income of $300,000 to the husband based on his lifestyle and corporate benefits, and ordered him to pay an equalization payment of $489,354, retroactive support of $196,462, and ongoing spousal support of $7,000 per month (or a lump sum of $585,000).

Following a family trial, the court determined the payor spouse's income for child support purposes after rejecting the recipient's request to impute higher income based on alleged under-employment, cash income, and lifestyle evidence.

Applying the governing imputation principles and the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court fixed adjusted incomes, found that the payor had overpaid table child support, and ordered reimbursement through funds held in trust.

The court also assessed disputed s. 7 claims, allowing certain daycare, medical, dental, travel, and extracurricular expenses but rejecting school uniforms and past cell phone charges, while directing future sharing of the eldest child's cell phone expense.

Although the evidentiary basis for substantial spousal support was weak at the income levels accepted by the court, a modest amount for two years was ordered, and the remaining trust funds were distributed by set-off.

In a high-net-worth matrimonial dispute, the court addressed equalization, spousal support, a related corporate application, and a bankruptcy annulment.

The husband, who founded a highly successful international Halloween products business, engaged in extensive efforts to hide his income and assets in offshore companies, breached a Mareva injunction, and made a strategic assignment into bankruptcy to defeat his wife's claims.

The court imputed the husband's income at $1,400,000 per year, ordered an equalization payment of over $3.5 million, and awarded lump sum spousal support of nearly $6 million due to his history of non-compliance.

The court also annulled the husband's bankruptcy as an abuse of process and dismissed a related application by one of his offshore companies claiming beneficial ownership of an Ontario property.

The applicant and respondents operated a chiropractic and physiotherapy clinic as a partnership.

Following the dissolution of the partnership, the respondents continued to operate out of the same premises using partnership assets.

The applicant sought a share of the post-dissolution profits under s. 42 of the Partnerships Act and a determination of the fair market value of his one-third share of the partnership.

The court awarded the applicant a portion of the post-dissolution profits based on the percentage attributable to the use of partnership assets, and determined the fair market value of his share using a capitalized cash flow approach with a minority discount, resulting in a total award of $62,246.68.

A 14-year-old applicant commenced an application for child support against her alleged biological father, seeking private school tuition.

The respondent relied on a 1999 agreement with the applicant's mother settling child support on a final basis.

The parties brought multiple interim motions.

The court ordered that the parties be referred to by initials to protect the respondent's children, required the applicant to appoint a litigation guardian, and ordered the applicant and her mother to attend for questioning.

The court dismissed the applicant's motions for interim disbursements, temporary child support, and summary judgment, finding no immediate need for support and that the enforceability of the 1999 agreement was a genuine issue for trial.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated after a five-and-a-half-year cohabitation and brief marriage.

They have two young children.

The applicant sought sole or joint custody, while the respondent sought sole custody.

The court found a history of domestic violence by the applicant and high conflict between the parties, making joint custody inappropriate.

Sole custody was awarded to the respondent, with generous access to the applicant.

The court imputed income to the applicant at $206,700 and to the respondent at $27,000.

The applicant was ordered to pay table child support and mid-range spousal support for a fixed period of five years.

The court also valued the applicant's business and other assets, resulting in an equalization payment of $91,056.10 owed by the respondent to the applicant.

The parties separated, and the husband subsequently received 245,000 stock options from his employer.

The trial judge included a prorated portion of these options in the husband's net family property, finding they were earned prior to separation.

The trial judge also rejected the husband's expert valuation of his pre-separation options using the Black-Scholes method, instead using an 'if and when' approach based on the actual profit realized when the options were later exercised.

The Court of Appeal upheld the inclusion of the post-separation options but found the trial judge erred in using hindsight to value the options.

The Court held that the Black-Scholes method is an appropriate valuation approach for employee stock options where the underlying stock is publicly traded, and adjusted the equalization payment accordingly.

The appellant husband appealed a trial decision that imputed his income for child support purposes after he abandoned his successful independent electrical contracting business for a lower-paying salaried position.

The trial judge found him intentionally underemployed under s. 19(1) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, averaged his previous three years of corporate income, and grossed it up to account for the lower corporate tax rate he paid compared to a salaried employee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding of intentional underemployment and the gross-up of corporate income to ensure consistent treatment of spouses under the Guidelines.

The respondent wife's cross-appeal for increased spousal support was also dismissed.