Francois Kasenda Kabemba

Child protection motion concerning the temporary care and custody of five children under the Child and Family Services Act.

The child protection agency sought an order placing the children in its temporary care for six months following allegations of domestic violence, physical discipline, and instability in the parental home.

The father opposed the motion and sought immediate placement of the children with him.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children would likely suffer physical or psychological harm if returned to the father and concluded that supervision orders would not sufficiently protect them.

The court maintained the children in the agency’s temporary care and appointed an independent psychologist to conduct a parental capacity assessment under s. 54 of the Act.

In this child protection matter involving a newborn, the Society sought temporary care while pursuing Crown wardship for adoption.

The mother opposed and moved for temporary placement with a maternal aunt, with the father consenting to that proposal.

The court declined to change the child’s existing temporary placement before the kinship assessment of the aunt was completed, citing unresolved questions about the proposed plan and the risk of multiple placement changes.

Temporary care was therefore ordered to remain with the Society, without prejudice, with parental access at the Society’s discretion subject to existing visit terms.

The Appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for financial loss compensation under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Appellants had entered into a contract with a builder for a custom home, but construction ceased and the contract was terminated.

The Appellants claimed they paid more than the value of the work and materials supplied, alleging defective and incomplete work.

The Tribunal found the evidence of the builder's sub-trades to be the most reliable, establishing that the value of the work and materials supplied exceeded the $136,760.00 paid by the Appellants.

The Tribunal gave limited weight to the Appellants' expert witness, who had not visited the site.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was directed to deny the claim in full.

Les appelants ont contesté en appel la conclusion selon laquelle leurs lettres de démission du conseil d’administration d’une fondation étaient valides, plaidant l’influence indue et un complot visant la prise de contrôle de l’organisme.

La Cour d’appel a conclu que le juge des requêtes disposait de tous les faits pertinents, avait examiné les allégations soulevées et n’avait commis aucune erreur manifeste et dominante dans son appréciation factuelle.

La cour a aussi rejeté la demande d’autorisation d’interjeter appel de l’ordonnance de dépens.

Les dépens de l’appel ont été accordés aux intimés sur une base d’indemnité partielle.

The applicant spouse brought a motion seeking interim spousal support, occupation rent for the matrimonial home, and an order for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court declined to grant interim relief, noting the matter was already scheduled for trial within two months and that the requested orders would require credibility findings and fuller financial disclosure.

The court held that issues relating to occupation rent, ownership interests, equalization, and entitlement to spousal support should be determined by the trial judge after a full evidentiary hearing.

Concerns also existed regarding incomplete financial disclosure and the respondent’s ongoing payment of household and child-related expenses.

The motion was dismissed with costs reserved to the trial judge.

The respondents in the underlying proceeding brought a motion seeking recovery of $15,159.17 in costs allegedly incurred in a prior vendor–purchaser motion.

The court held that the relief sought fell outside the scope and jurisdiction of the files in which the motion was brought.

The evidence showed that the moving parties had resigned as directors of the foundation and therefore lacked authority to retain counsel or act on behalf of the foundation in the earlier proceeding.

Applying rule 57.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court declined to award costs to the moving parties and rejected their claim for recovery of those costs.

The motion was dismissed without costs.

Les requérants demandaient le recouvrement de dépens à la suite d’un litige relatif à la vente d’un bien‑fonds appartenant à une fondation.

Dans une requête antérieure, ils s’étaient opposés à la vente du bien-fonds et avaient été déboutés, la cour concluant qu’ils n’avaient pas respecté les obligations du vendeur prévues à la convention d’achat‑vente.

La cour a conclu que leur opposition infructueuse à la conclusion de la vente avait provoqué le litige et que leur conduite ne justifiait pas l’octroi de dépens en leur faveur.

Le recouvrement des dépens demandé par les requérants a donc été rejeté.

La motion incidente et toute compensation des dépens ont également été rejetées, sans ordonnance de dépens en faveur des intimés.

The court was asked to determine the amount of debts owed by a religious foundation to various individuals who allegedly advanced funds used to purchase a church property and whether those debts should be paid from the proceeds of the property’s sale held in trust.

The moving parties asserted numerous loans, while the opposing faction disputed several claims and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence.

Applying principles relating to burden of proof, credibility in undocumented loan transactions, and adverse inferences for missing evidence, the court reviewed each claimed advance individually.

The court accepted certain claims supported by documentary evidence, including mortgage-related advances and payments made to satisfy obligations to a vendor mortgagee.

Other claims were rejected where evidence was inconsistent, unsupported, or contradicted by banking records.

The court ordered payment of specific sums from the sale proceeds to certain creditors, including the Kabelu parties and two additional lenders.

Parties disputed the debts owed by a foundation in connection with funds held from the sale of a building.

The court determined the specific creditors and amounts owing, including debts related to a second mortgage, institutional loans, and private advances.

The court directed that the purchaser of the property could appear within seven days to show cause why the identified debts should not be paid immediately from trust funds held by a law firm or the court registrar.

Absent such notice, the trustee or registrar was ordered to distribute the specified amounts to the named creditors, with any remaining balance payable to the foundation.

Following a successful application determining that the respondents could not unilaterally revoke their resignations as directors of a charitable foundation, the applicants sought costs.

The court found the respondents' conduct in attempting to retake control of the foundation and removing its property to be unreasonable.

The court awarded costs to the applicants on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $65,000 plus HST and $7,000 in disbursements.

The applicants sought declarations regarding the corporate governance of a non-share capital charitable corporation after two directors, who were also pastors, resigned and later attempted to revoke their resignations.

The court held that under the Canada Corporations Act and the corporation's by-laws, a director's resignation becomes effective when irrevocably sent to the corporation.

The court further held that a director cannot unilaterally revoke a resignation once it has been received and accepted by the board.

Consequently, the respondents were no longer directors and had no authority to act on behalf of the corporation.

Following an application concerning enforcement of an agreement of purchase and sale for real property, the court determined entitlement and quantum of costs.

The purchaser applicant had succeeded in obtaining an order confirming that the vendor corporation remained obligated to convey title and extending the closing date.

Competing internal factions within the respondent corporation advanced opposing positions, but neither faction was treated as a party for purposes of the costs determination.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court held that partial indemnity costs were appropriate and rejected a claim for higher or substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed in favour of the applicant purchaser and payable by the respondent corporation.

The appellant husband appealed three provisions of a final order made at a settlement conference regarding retroactive child support, retroactive spousal support, and ongoing spousal support.

The Divisional Court found that the conference judge bullied the self-represented husband into an equivocal consent, misinformed him about the law, made inappropriate comments about his cultural background, and denied him procedural fairness.

The appeal was allowed, and the support provisions were set aside without prejudice to the wife's claims.

The applicant purchaser brought an emergency application for specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a commercial property.

The respondent vendor failed to close the transaction on the scheduled date, citing the purchaser's lack of mortgage funds, while the vendor itself had failed to answer requisitions or prepare closing documents due to an internal corporate dispute.

The court found that the vendor's failure to perform its obligations and its implied renunciation of the contract relieved the purchaser of the requirement to tender.

The court ordered specific performance, enforcing an extension of the closing date agreed to by the vendor's ostensible representatives.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application after she failed to attend the final day of the hearing.

The applicant argued she did not receive notice of the hearing date and that her recent retention of counsel justified reopening the case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had ample notice of the hearing date and that retaining counsel after a hearing is scheduled does not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The appellant, a resident of a co-operative housing corporation, was evicted for failing to perform mandatory volunteer work.

She had provided a doctor's note stating she was medically incapable of performing the work due to a mental disability, but refused to provide further medical details to the co-op board.

The Divisional Court allowed her appeal, holding that the court and the co-op board must apply the Ontario Human Rights Code when considering an eviction under the Co-Operative Corporations Act.

The court found that the co-op had a duty to accommodate the appellant's disability and that requiring her to divulge private medical information as a condition of maintaining her housing violated the Code.