Gordon S. Campbell

The appellant father appealed a final parenting order regarding his adult child with Down Syndrome.

The trial judge had ordered that the father have no unsupervised parenting time, and that supervised parenting time occur only at the respondent mother's discretion.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence confirming the child's views could not be easily ascertained, satisfying the presumption of capacity framework.

However, the Court found the trial judge erred by failing to include a review mechanism in the order, given that the adult child would never 'age out' of it.

The appeal was allowed in part and remitted to the trial judge to structure a built-in review mechanism to allow the father to seek unsupervised parenting time in the future.

The applicants, owners of adjacent waterfront cottages, sought a declaration of communal adverse possession over a parcel of land separating their properties from the Ottawa River.

The disputed land had been purchased by the respondents following a municipal tax sale.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding that Ontario law does not recognize a communal claim for adverse possession where the claimants only used discrete portions of the land rather than possessing the whole in common.

The court also rejected the applicants' challenge to the respondents' legal title, finding the paralegal's affidavit on title issues inadmissible as expert opinion.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction regarding a residential heat pump, the parties could not agree on costs.

The defendants sought costs between partial and substantial indemnity, citing the plaintiffs' conduct including a last-minute adjournment and lengthy cross-examinations.

The court found the conduct did not warrant elevated costs but considered it in fixing the quantum.

The court awarded the defendants costs of $17,773.21 on a partial indemnity basis, finding it to be a fair and reasonable amount.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction to compel their neighbours to relocate a heat pump, alleging the noise and vibration constituted a nuisance and caused health issues.

The court applied the modified RJR-MacDonald test for mandatory injunctions.

The motion was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a strong prima facie case, largely due to insufficient medical and expert evidence linking the heat pump to their complaints, and failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory family law decision that imposed a new interim parenting regime.

The court considered the test for granting leave to appeal under the Courts of Justice Act and applicable procedural rules.

It found there were serious questions about whether the motion judge exceeded jurisdiction by making substantive orders not requested in the pleadings and without a full evidentiary record or opportunity for cross-examination.

The court held that the circumstances raised concerns about natural justice and procedural fairness.

Leave to appeal was granted and a temporary stay of the impugned order was issued pending the appeal.