Fowler Byrne

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, both parties brought motions for various interim relief.

The mother sought to vary an interim access order, compel the father to undergo a medical examination for alcoholism, and obtain a restraining order.

The father sought to amend his application to claim partition and sale of the matrimonial home, an immediate order for its sale, and occupation rent.

The court dismissed the mother's requests to vary access and compel a medical exam due to insufficient evidence, but ordered the parties to communicate via a co-parenting app.

The court granted the father leave to amend his application to claim partition and sale, but adjourned the motion for sale to allow the mother time to determine if she could purchase his interest.

The court also made orders regarding life insurance, preservation of specific assets, and ongoing expenses.

The defendant director brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action against him in his personal capacity.

The plaintiff alleged the director should be personally liable for inducing breach of contract, deceit, and other torts, arguing the corporate veil should be pierced due to the director changing corporations mid-project for personal reasons.

The court dismissed the defendant's request to file a late supplementary affidavit.

The court also dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that a trial was required to determine the director's intent behind the corporate restructuring and billing practices, and whether his actions constituted a separate tort or improper conduct warranting piercing the corporate veil.

This case involved a two-day trial to determine outstanding s. 7 child support expenses for two children following a divorce.

The respondent father disputed payment based on arguments that the applicant mother did not personally incur the expenses (they were paid by extended family) and that he did not provide prior consent as required by a Final Order.

The court addressed the necessity and reasonableness of the expenses, the impact of third-party payments, and the requirement for prior consent, ultimately ordering the father to pay a significant portion of the claimed expenses and establishing a new communication protocol for future expenses.

This costs endorsement follows a motion where the defendant sought dismissal of the plaintiff's claim, which was denied, but other orders were made to advance the matter.

The plaintiff, self-represented, sought costs.

The court found the plaintiff was prima facie entitled to costs as the defendant was unsuccessful in its primary request for dismissal.

However, the plaintiff's claim for costs was significantly reduced due to insufficient evidence of lost remunerative activity, excessive hours claimed, and unsubstantiated disbursements.

The court awarded the plaintiff $500 in costs, inclusive of time and disbursements, noting that the plaintiff's inaction necessitated some of the orders made.

Following a successful application by a condominium corporation to enforce its declaration against an offending unit owner and its tenants, the court determined the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The court awarded the applicant full indemnity costs of $24,771.93, noting that section 134(5) of the Condominium Act and the condominium's declaration contemplate full recovery of enforcement costs to protect innocent unit owners.

A supporting respondent, who gathered evidence of the breach to protect his exclusive use rights, was awarded partial indemnity costs of $15,000 against the offending respondents.

This criminal trial concerned multiple charges, including aggravated assault and firearm offences, stemming from a shooting incident where a child was injured.

The court, sitting without a jury, evaluated circumstantial evidence primarily focused on identity.

One defendant was found guilty of numerous charges based on a confession, corroborating video evidence, and flight from police, while the other defendant was acquitted on all counts due to insufficient evidence and unreliable expert testimony regarding fingerprints.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted to the respondent for a violation of her Charter s. 11(b) right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The trial judge found the total delay exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan and that the Crown failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or reasonable steps to mitigate the delay following an adjournment caused by a witness's medical emergency.

The Superior Court dismissed the Crown's appeal, affirming the trial judge's implicit findings that no delay was attributable to the defence and that the Crown had not taken reasonable steps to secure an earlier trial date after the initial adjournment.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on impaired driving and over 80 charges.

The trial judge erred by refusing to allow the Crown to call the Qualified Breath Technician (QBT) without a certificate and by dismissing the charges without hearing submissions.

The Superior Court found these to be fundamental errors in law, as the Crown is entitled to prove its case through viva voce evidence even without a certificate, and parties must be given an opportunity to make submissions.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted for a new trial.

The appellant, Michael Johnston, appealed his conviction for Over 80.

The appeal focused on the trial judge's failure to address a conceded Section 10(a) Charter breach and to provide reasons for rejecting it, thereby denying counsel an opportunity to make submissions on the point.

The Superior Court found that the trial judge erred by not notifying counsel of her intention to reject the concession and by failing to provide adequate reasons for her decision regarding the Charter breaches.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered.