Gerry Smits

The respondents requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found them liable for sexual harassment and discrimination.

They argued that the applicant's failure to produce a police report and medical records should have led to adverse inferences, and that the decision conflicted with established case law.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondents were attempting to re-argue issues already addressed in the original decision and had not presented new determinative evidence or demonstrated a conflict with established jurisprudence.

The applicant, a real estate sales agent, alleged that the personal respondent, the broker of record, subjected her to sexual harassment and sexual solicitation.

The Tribunal found that the personal respondent engaged in a course of vexatious comments about the applicant's appearance and subjected her to unwanted physical contact, including hugging and touching her shoulder.

The Tribunal concluded that this conduct amounted to sexual harassment under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents were ordered to pay $15,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to implement a workplace sexual harassment policy.

Following a motion concerning jurisdiction over a family law dispute, the court determined that Alberta retained jurisdiction pursuant to a prior Alberta order and stayed the Ontario proceeding.

The responding party had been successful on the jurisdictional issue, which was the primary and most time‑consuming matter argued.

The moving party obtained limited uncontested relief regarding termination of ongoing child support and payment of arrears, but these matters were resolved quickly and largely on consent.

Applying the principles governing costs in family litigation, including proportionality and reasonableness, the court concluded that the successful party on the principal issue was presumptively entitled to costs.

The applicant brought a motion to change in Ontario seeking termination of child support, reduction of arrears, contempt findings, and reimbursement of expenses relating to an Alberta parenting order.

The respondent moved for a declaration that Alberta had jurisdiction over the dispute.

The court held that the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench retained jurisdiction pursuant to an earlier order expressly reserving jurisdiction over custody, access, and support issues.

Applying jurisdiction and forum non conveniens principles, the court concluded Alberta was clearly the more appropriate forum because the child had resided there, the respondent remained there, and most relevant evidence was located there.

The Ontario proceeding was therefore stayed.

This was a costs endorsement following a successful motion for disclosure in related litigation involving alleged misuse of information said to be subject to the deemed undertaking rule.

The court reviewed the costs factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and held that the remaining issue on the motion was not complicated and could have been settled in the manner ultimately ordered.

The successful moving party was entitled to partial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at $3,228.41 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable within 30 days.

A dispute arose among partners in a long‑standing farming partnership following notice of termination given under the partnership agreement.

The court was asked to interpret provisions of the partnership agreement concerning termination, partner draws, and occupation of homes situated on partnership property.

The court held that the partnership terminated six months after written notice and declared that all partnership draws should have ceased upon termination.

The court further determined that partners occupying houses on the farm were required to pay fair market value rent from the date of termination while winding up the partnership.

Orders were made directing the sale of farm equipment, cattle, and the farm property within specified timelines.

The plaintiffs were partially successful at trial, establishing that their mother breached her fiduciary duty through physical abuse, but failing to establish claims regarding sexual abuse against her and their grandparents.

In this costs decision, the court awarded the plaintiffs substantial indemnity costs of $62,899.60 against the mother to condemn her assaultive behavior, despite their limited success.

The successful grandparent defendants were awarded modest partial indemnity costs of $13,000.

Pre-judgment interest was fixed at 5 percent, but limited to a 5-year period due to the plaintiffs' delay in prosecuting the claim.

The plaintiffs sued their mother and maternal grandparents for breach of fiduciary duty, alleging they failed to protect them from childhood sexual abuse perpetrated by their uncles.

The plaintiffs also alleged their mother physically abused them.

The court dismissed the claims regarding the sexual abuse, finding insufficient evidence that the mother or grandparents knew or ought to have known about the abuse at the time.

However, the court found the mother liable for breach of fiduciary duty due to repeated physical abuse and awarded each plaintiff $35,000 in damages.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood following a single-vehicle collision.

The accused denied being the driver and claimed Charter violations regarding the right to counsel and unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found the accused was the driver based on credible eyewitness evidence and physical evidence from the collision.

No Charter violations were found.

The court concluded the accused's ability to operate the vehicle was impaired by alcohol and her blood alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit at the time of the collision.

The applicant brought a motion concerning enforcement of property transfer relating to the former matrimonial home and temporary parenting access arrangements.

The respondent brought a cross‑motion seeking enforcement of an existing temporary order permitting overnight access and requesting additional mid‑week parenting time.

Applying the best interests of the child test under s. 16 of the Divorce Act, the court concluded that increased contact with the respondent was appropriate.

The court ordered a rotating two‑week schedule providing alternate weekend overnight access and mid‑week visits, with more mid‑week time during weeks without weekend parenting time.

Although the applicant succeeded on the issue relating to the transfer of the matrimonial home and the respondent succeeded on the access issues, success overall was divided and no costs were awarded.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support following the parties’ separation after a long-term marriage with three children.

The parties agreed to a without prejudice order for child support.

The applicant had previously earned approximately $70,000 annually but lost her employment when her employer went bankrupt and subsequently earned significantly less.

The court found the applicant had experienced a temporary financial need and had been disadvantaged by the parties’ marital arrangements that involved working from home while the respondent pursued a demanding career.

The court attributed income of $40,000 to the applicant and ordered interim spousal support for a limited period subject to review.

The appellants purchased a house from the respondents and subsequently discovered electrical, plumbing, and structural defects resulting from the respondents' DIY renovations and previous substandard work.

The appellants, who declined a pre-purchase inspection, sued for the cost of repairs, alleging the respondents concealed latent defects.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the respondents were unaware of the defects and did not actively conceal them.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that 'active concealment' requires an intention to hide a known defect, and the principle of caveat emptor applied.

The appellant veterinarian appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for purchasing and administering illegal, unlabelled drugs, and the subsequent penalty of a two-year suspension and $25,000 in costs.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness due to inadequate reasons regarding credibility findings, the admission of hearsay, and consideration of a prior racing commission decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's reasons were adequate for appellate review, the evidentiary rulings were proper, and the penalty and costs were reasonable and entitled to deference.