Frances P. Kiteley

A police officer was ordered dismissed in seven days unless he resigned before that time, pursuant to s. 68(1)(b) of the Police Services Act.

The officer submitted his resignation on the seventh day.

An arbitrator ruled the resignation was ineffective, denying the officer his accumulated sick pay credits.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and found the arbitrator's interpretation of the statutory time period was both reasonable and correct.

The application was dismissed.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion for public interest standing and to consolidate his application for judicial review with a separate Superior Court application.

The respondents opposed the motion, noting they had a pending motion to strike the application for failing to disclose a cause of action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applicant's motion, holding that the motion to strike must proceed first as it would determine whether there was a serious justiciable issue.

The court also found it lacked jurisdiction to consolidate the matters and awarded costs of $1,000 to each respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which dismissed his complaints for delay.

The applicant had filed complaints regarding his termination and a subsequent settlement agreement 18 months and over two years after the events, respectively.

The Divisional Court found that both tribunals reasonably exercised their discretion in determining that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant landlord appealed a trial judgment that found successive indemnifiers were not liable for increased rent during the extension period of a commercial lease.

The trial judge concluded that the indemnifiers were exposed to increased risk due to the higher base rent during the extension, which did not bind them.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in his conclusion that the option to renew or extend the lease was neither exercised nor assigned, and therefore could not inform the reasonable expectations arising from the subsequent consent and indemnification agreement.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant insurance company sought judicial review of a Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) decision regarding the applicable interest rate on overdue Statutory Accident Benefits.

The central issue was the interpretation of transitional provisions between the old and new Statutory Accident Benefits Schedules for amounts becoming overdue after September 1, 2010.

The Divisional Court determined the standard of review was reasonableness, as the Tribunal was interpreting its home statute.

The Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded that the 2% interest rate under the old regulation continued to apply to amounts that became overdue after September 1, 2010.

In a high-conflict matrimonial proceeding involving extensive disputes over financial disclosure, corporate interests, and equalization, the respondent spouse brought multiple motions including contempt, interim disbursements, and disclosure-related relief.

The court declined to dismiss the contempt motion outright but adjourned it for further legal submissions, noting deficiencies in the supporting factum.

The court granted the respondent an advance of $10,000 against the anticipated equalization payment to retain a financial expert, finding a reasonable need and little doubt that some equalization would ultimately be payable.

Various other motions, including questioning, OCL appointment, and electronic service orders, were dismissed or adjourned.

The matter was placed under case management and converted from a long motion into a settlement conference to promote resolution.

The moving party mother brought a motion for temporary child support, section 7 expenses, and interim disbursements to obtain an expert income report.

The responding party father, who is self-employed, persistently failed to provide adequate financial disclosure and claimed an income of approximately $28,000, despite having expenses of over $53,000.

The court imputed the father's income at $53,076 based on his stated expenses and ordered him to pay table child support and 70% of the child's post-secondary expenses.

The court also ordered the father to pay $15,000 in interim disbursements to allow the mother to retain an expert to determine his true income.

Following competing family law motions addressing temporary child support, parenting schedule, and claims for special or extraordinary expenses, the court was asked to determine costs.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs of $15,000, while the respondent argued for no costs or a modest award.

The court found success on the motions was divided: the applicant succeeded in maintaining the residential schedule and obtaining temporary child support based on imputed income, but failed on claims for intentional underemployment and s. 7 expenses, and obtained only partial retroactive support.

Considering the Family Law Rules, including Rules 24 and 18, and the parties’ settlement offers, the court concluded the applicant achieved only modestly greater success.

Costs were therefore fixed in a modest amount.

The court determined costs arising from competing family law motions involving a request to strike pleadings and a motion to amend an answer.

The respondent obtained an adjournment of the applicant’s motion and leave to amend the answer, while the applicant successfully limited the proposed amendments and resisted a request for questioning.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found that success was divided and that both parties had behaved unreasonably in aspects of the litigation.

The applicant had commenced a motion prematurely and before an agreed hearing date, while the respondent delayed bringing a motion to amend despite earlier leave to do so.

In light of the divided success and unreasonable conduct on both sides, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The parties brought cross-motions in a family law proceeding.

The self-represented applicant sought retroactive spousal support, interim disbursements, further disclosure, and leave to amend her application.

The respondent sought an order for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home and temporary exclusive possession.

The court permitted the applicant to amend her application but dismissed her other requests, noting inconsistencies in her positions regarding the respondent's pension and retroactive support.

The court also dismissed the respondent's motion for sale and exclusive possession, finding a sale would prejudice the applicant's claim for a vesting order.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

Following earlier reasons on two family law motions, the court determined costs.

The respondent in the underlying motions sought partial indemnity costs for motions to enforce a costs arbitral award and for security for costs.

The court found the respondent had been successful on both motions, although the security for costs order was granted in a lesser amount than requested.

The court held the claimed fees were generally reasonable but disallowed certain unexplained disbursements.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis in favour of the successful moving party.

Decision determining costs following competing family law motions involving issues related to the matrimonial home and financial responsibilities.

Both parties claimed substantial success and relied on offers to settle under the Family Law Rules.

The court found success was divided and neither party acted unreasonably.

Considering the factors under Rule 24 and the timing and content of the parties’ settlement offers, the court concluded that neither party was clearly entitled to full costs, though the respondent should make a modest contribution to the applicant’s costs.

In a family law proceeding following separation, the applicant obtained an ex parte certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a property purchased by the respondent after separation.

The respondent argued that the CPL should be discharged because the applicant had not asserted a direct legal or equitable interest in the property.

The court considered whether claims for equalization of net family property, a vesting order under s. 9(1)(d), and preservation orders under s. 12 of the Family Law Act were sufficient to bring an interest in land into question.

Relying on Nash v. Gilbert, the court held that such claims can ground a CPL because they place an interest in land in issue within the statutory scheme of equalization and preservation of assets.

Although the CPL was discharged by consent to permit the closing of a sale to third-party purchasers, the court ordered that the entire net proceeds of sale be held in trust pending further order.

A high‑conflict family law trial addressed custody, access, child support, spousal support, equalization of net family property, and a request for a restraining order following the breakdown of a long marriage.

The court considered the views and preferences of the parties’ 13‑year‑old child, evidence from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, and the parents’ extensive conflict regarding parenting decisions.

The court found both parents capable but unable to cooperate, and accepted the child’s clear preference to reside primarily with the mother.

The father’s income from a self‑employment business was found to be understated, and income was imputed for support purposes.

Orders were made granting the mother sole custody, establishing a detailed parenting schedule, awarding retroactive child and spousal support, determining equalization of property, and dismissing the request for a restraining order.

Following family arbitration concerning spousal support, the respondent sought to enforce an arbitral costs award and to obtain security for costs in related court proceedings.

The applicant had commenced proceedings seeking to set aside the arbitral awards and various related relief.

The court held that the statutory requirements for enforcement of the arbitral costs award under the Family Law Act and Arbitration Act, 1991 were met and incorporated the award into a court order, but stayed enforcement pending the determination of a forthcoming summary judgment motion.

The court also found that security for costs was justified because the applicant resided outside Ontario, but reduced the requested amount and ordered security of $16,000 to be posted through share certificates.

The respondent’s motions were therefore granted with modifications.

The court determined costs following competing family law motions concerning the appointment of a professional to prepare a Voice of the Child Report and disclosure of a professional’s file.

Both parties achieved partial success on the motions.

The court found that neither party demonstrated unreasonable conduct under the Family Law Rules despite allegations from both sides.

However, the applicant had made an offer to settle regarding disclosure of the professional’s file and ultimately achieved the result contemplated by that offer.

In recognition of that offer, the court ordered the respondent to pay modest costs for the disclosure motion while each party bore their own costs for the remaining issues.

The applicant sought temporary child support and contribution to section 7 expenses, while the respondent sought parenting-related relief including a 50/50 parenting schedule.

The court considered whether income should be imputed to the respondent, who reported no current income while serving as CEO of a biotechnology company without salary.

Applying s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court determined that despite the absence of reported income, the respondent maintained a high standard of living and income should therefore be imputed based on his expenses.

Income was imputed at $123,000 annually and guideline child support was ordered accordingly.

The court declined to order contribution to section 7 expenses due to insufficient evidence and maintained the existing parenting schedule pending further discussion at a settlement conference.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss a family law application seeking child and spousal support on the basis that parallel proceedings were already underway in Kenya.

The moving party argued the Ontario proceeding duplicated existing divorce and children’s cases initiated earlier by the responding party in Nairobi and constituted forum shopping.

The court held that at the time the motion was served there were ongoing proceedings between the same parties concerning the same subject matter, satisfying Family Law Rule 16(12)(c)(iii).

The court further found that the attempt to withdraw overlapping claims in Kenya after the motion was served to preserve the Ontario proceeding amounted to an abuse of process.

Although Ontario technically had jurisdiction over support issues, Kenya was clearly the more appropriate forum.

In an international custody dispute involving children brought from Ukraine to Ontario, the court addressed several interlocutory motions before a scheduled jurisdiction trial under the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The applicant sought production of a parenting professional’s file and appointment of a professional to prepare a Voice of the Child Report, while the respondent requested appointment of a different professional and validation of service of responding documents.

The court ordered full disclosure of the professional’s file, finding no confidentiality or privilege preventing production.

It also appointed an independent professional to prepare the Voice of the Child Report and confirmed that service of the respondent’s Answer and financial materials on the applicant’s counsel was effective.

Directions were given for production timelines and further procedural steps before the upcoming trial.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking expanded temporary parenting time, including overnight access and one week of summer access, pending completion of a s. 30 custody and access assessment.

The mother opposed the motion, relying on evidence of the father’s ongoing anger issues and the emotional impact of the current access arrangements on one of the children.

The court held that the father had not established a material change in circumstances since the recent interim order governing access and noted that only five months had elapsed since the previous order.

Evidence indicated continued behavioural concerns and lack of insight into the father’s conduct, which raised concerns about the children’s well-being.

The court concluded that expanding access would not be in the children’s best interests at this time.