Gordon Zlatko Bobesich

The defendant, Visiting Angels Inc., moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim alleging conversion, negligence, vicarious liability, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The claims arose from alleged theft and damage of items during a home cleaning service.

The plaintiff opposed the motion and sought to transfer the matter to Small Claims Court.

The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial as the plaintiff failed to provide reliable evidence to substantiate her claims of ownership, loss, or damage, or to link the alleged torts to the defendant.

This is a costs endorsement following motions to change a child support order.

The court previously reduced the respondent father's support arrears by $6,468 and revived his child support obligation as of September 1, 2014, while ordering him to contribute to the child's special expenses.

The court found divided success at trial, with the father slightly more successful due to the arrears reduction.

Despite both parties behaving unreasonably by failing to make settlement offers, the court ordered the mother to pay the father's costs of $1,200, payable at $100 per month, considering the mother's unreasonable refusal to terminate support and her obligation to report to the Family Responsibility Office.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a child support order dated October 26, 2007, seeking to terminate his obligation to pay $462 per month for his adult son.

The father argued the child became disentitled to support as of July 1, 2013, when the child ceased full-time education.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought a contribution to post-secondary education expenses.

The court found that while the child was disentitled to support from July 1, 2013 to August 31, 2014, the child's entitlement revived when he returned to full-time education in September 2014.

The father received a credit for arrears during the period of disentitlement.

The court maintained the father's imputed income at $50,000 per annum and ordered him to contribute to post-secondary education expenses.