Gregory M. Mulligan

Following a decision in which the respondent municipality successfully obtained an order approving a demolition order and finding the applicant in contempt, the respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant did not dispute the disbursements or the scale of costs but argued the quantum was conflated with the contempt penalty.

The court applied the principles for elevated costs, finding this was a rare and exceptional case where the applicant's behaviour warranted sanction.

The court awarded the respondent substantial indemnity costs fixed at $27,790.90.

The defendants sought costs following a 20-day trial where the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed and the defendants succeeded on their counterclaim.

The court awarded the first group of defendants costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the plaintiffs' reprehensible conduct, which amounted to elder abuse.

The second group of defendants was awarded partial indemnity costs, as the claims against them were not found to be vexatious.

Total costs of over $325,000 were awarded against the plaintiffs.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after an eight-year marriage.

Following a four-day trial where the mother was granted sole custody, the court determined the remaining financial and access issues.

The court imputed income to both parties, ordering the father to pay ongoing child support and spousal support for eight years to allow the mother to achieve self-sufficiency.

The court denied the mother's claim for retroactive spousal support and occupation rent, noting the father maintained the matrimonial home until its sale without contribution.

The mother retained medical decision-making authority, and a detailed access schedule was established.

The Grad defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and false imprisonment against them.

The claims arose after the Grad defendants reported the plaintiff to the police over a contract dispute, leading to criminal charges that were later withdrawn.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that a full trial was necessary to assess the defendants' motives and to avoid the risk of duplicative proceedings or inconsistent findings of fact, as the claims against the co-defendant police officers would proceed to trial in any event.

The appellant, a dental hygienist, was injured when a dental light fell from the ceiling while she was attending to a patient.

She sued the occupier for negligence under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

A jury dismissed the claim, finding the defendant had not failed in its duty to keep the premises reasonably safe.

The appellant appealed, arguing the verdict was perverse and ignored evidence that the defendant had no system for maintaining the structural integrity of the lights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the jury's verdict was supported by some evidence, including testimony from the dentist and the serviceman who installed and serviced the equipment, and that the plaintiff failed to prove causation.

The interested parties appealed a motions judge's order requiring them and the garnishee, Vale Canada Limited, to produce contracts and assignment documents for an upcoming garnishment hearing.

The plaintiffs had obtained a default judgment against the defendant and sought to garnish amounts owed by Vale, alleging that the defendant had invalidly assigned its contracts to the interested parties to avoid garnishment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge properly exercised his discretion under Rule 60.08(16) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to order production of documents relevant to determining the rights and liabilities of the parties at the garnishment hearing.

The municipality appealed a motion judge's decision to stay its civil action against the defendants pending the completion of related criminal fraud charges against one of the defendants.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in law by holding that section 7 of the Charter eclipsed the established test requiring extraordinary or exceptional circumstances for a stay.

The court reaffirmed that the burden remains on the moving party to prove exceptional circumstances, and set aside the stay.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision which found that rent increases for several cottage leases were void because the landlord failed to provide the required 90 days' notice under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the leases were subject to the Act and that the tenants were entitled to a rebate for the excess rent paid in the one year prior to their applications.

The plaintiff appealed an order requiring her to produce a letter sent by an accountant to her lawyer, claiming it was protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's determination that the plaintiff had given a clear, unconditional undertaking during discovery to produce the letter.

Furthermore, the court agreed that the communication did not fall within the specific categories where solicitor-client privilege attaches to third-party communications.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant had been terminated for safety infractions and subsequently retired and began drawing his pension without notifying the union, leading the union to withdraw his grievance.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the Board's decision that the union had not acted arbitrarily was within the range of acceptable outcomes.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for sole custody following the respondent father's arrest for domestic violence offences.

The father sought temporary access supervised by his family members.

The court dismissed the father's request for family-supervised access, noting concerns about the proposed facilitators taking sides.

The court ordered temporary supervised access for one hour per week at a supervised access centre for the older child only, finding no benefit to ordering access for the one-and-a-half-month-old infant in that environment.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial, the court convicted the accused on multiple sexual offences involving three child complainants and on firearm offences arising from firearms found in his rural residence while he was subject to a weapons prohibition order.

The court admitted two complainants' prior video-recorded statements under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code, assessed the evidence through the lens of credibility, reliability, and the reasonable doubt standard, and accepted the complainants' evidence despite delayed disclosure and some peripheral inconsistencies.

DNA evidence from underwear and medical evidence from a sexual assault examination materially corroborated one complainant's account.

The court also found constructive possession of rifles in a locked cabinet and held that keeping a rifle in a kitchen accessible in a home with children, and discharging a firearm from inside the house, constituted a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable person under s. 86(1).

The property owner's dwelling was damaged by fire, leading the municipality to issue a demolition order.

The owner previously obtained a consent order staying the demolition on the condition that she take specific steps to repair the property within six months.

After the owner failed to take any of the required steps for over 18 months, the municipality brought a motion for an order to demolish the property and to find the owner in contempt.

The court granted the motion, ordering the demolition of the property and finding the owner in contempt of the previous order, with the penalty phase adjourned.

On a Crown application for a long-term offender designation following guilty pleas to possession of child pornography and making child pornography, the court found a substantial risk of sexual reoffending and a reasonable possibility of eventual control of that risk in the community.

The offender had prior convictions for child pornography, sexual interference, and repeated probation breaches, and expert forensic psychiatric evidence supported the designation.

The court imposed a penitentiary sentence to permit structured assessment and treatment, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

Ancillary DNA, SOIRA, prohibition, forfeiture, and victim surcharge orders were also made.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for impaired driving and driving 'over 80'.

He argued the trial judge provided insufficient reasons for the impaired driving conviction and erred in dismissing a section 8 Charter motion regarding a delayed breath demand.

The summary conviction appeal judge found the trial judge's reasons met the functional test for sufficiency.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding that the breath demand, made 15 minutes after arrest because the officer forgot in the chaotic scene, was made 'as soon as practicable'.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Battano Construction Limited, moved for default judgment against the defendant, Maram Building Corp. Maram, whose counsel had withdrawn, sought leave to be represented by its Director and Officer, Mary Pickard, and requested an opportunity to set aside the noting in default.

The court granted leave for Ms. Pickard to represent Maram and found that Maram had substantially complied with previous orders regarding costs and the motion for leave.

Consequently, the court granted Maram 15 days to file a motion to set aside the noting in default, adjourning Battano's default judgment motion pending the outcome.

The plaintiff, Otomic Contractors Ltd., sought partial indemnity costs after successfully claiming damages and upholding a construction lien in a four-and-a-half-day trial.

The defendant, Royal 7 Developments Ltd., opposed the plaintiff's claim for $120,902.32, arguing over-preparation and an excessive hourly rate.

The court, applying principles of judicial discretion, reasonableness, and proportionality under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, found the plaintiff's requested hours disproportionately high.

The court awarded the plaintiff $75,000 in fees plus HST and disbursements, totaling $94,724.74 after a credit for a prior costs award.

The plaintiffs sought default judgment against the defendants for outstanding amounts on a promissory note, equipment leases, and damages arising from an unjustified injunction.

The court granted default judgment for the promissory note and equipment lease payments, but denied claims for personal expenses and time spent due to lack of supporting evidence.

Damages were awarded after crediting the defendants for asset recovery.

The applicants, five beneficiaries of the estate, brought an application requiring the estate trustees to pass accounts.

The court had to determine whether a joint bank account held by the deceased and one of the trustees was an asset of the estate, and whether legal and accounting fees incurred by the trustee should be deducted from her executor's compensation.

The court found that the joint account was an asset of the estate, as the trustee failed to rebut the presumption of resulting trust.

The court also held that $37,512.57 in legal fees should be deducted from the trustee's compensation because the accounts did not differentiate between legal work and executor's work, but allowed the accounting and tax preparation fees to be paid by the estate.

The trustee was awarded net compensation of $7,522.25.

The plaintiffs and two State Farm defendants brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant Michael Morton due to his repeated failure to file a Statement of Defence or take any steps in the action, despite having been granted multiple indulgences by the court.

The court found that Morton was plainly in default and, pursuant to Rule 19.02(1), was deemed to admit the allegations of fact.

Default judgment was granted against Morton for the settled claim amount of $1,316,654.32, along with partial indemnity costs of $16,981.86.