Gwendolyn L. Adrian

The plaintiff brought a motion for sentencing after the self-represented defendant was found in civil contempt for repeatedly breaching a permanent injunction prohibiting him from publishing defamatory statements about her.

The underlying dispute originated from a minor disagreement over a fence, which escalated into a relentless online harassment campaign by the defendant.

The court found that the defendant's apology was insincere, as he continued to violate the order and failed to pay previously awarded damages.

Emphasizing the need for specific and general deterrence, the court sentenced the defendant to 21 days in custody.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for judgment arising from the defendants' breach of a settlement agreement.

The defendants failed to pay the final installment, sign a consent to judgment, and sign a consent to a dismissal order, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to unilaterally alter the terms.

The court found no valid reason for non-compliance, rejected the pandemic excuse, and granted judgment for the plaintiffs in the amount of $90,000 (the $120,000 default amount less $30,000 paid), plus substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff and defendants were neighbours involved in a bitter dispute over a property line, a fence, and alleged defamation.

After most claims were resolved, abandoned, or rendered moot by the sale of both properties, the plaintiff sought summary judgment for $1,412.50 representing the cost of removing and replacing a portion of the fence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the local bylaw did not entitle the plaintiff to unilaterally hire a contractor and seek reimbursement.

As the plaintiff had abandoned the majority of her claims, the court dismissed the action entirely and awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs of $31,812.52.

The plaintiff sought costs following the dismissal of the defendant's motion to set aside his noting in default and his cross-motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that the defendant had flouted the Rules of Civil Procedure, attempted to bully his way out, and rejected early offers to set aside the noting in default for a nominal payment.

The defendant's conduct warranted an elevated award of costs.

The court ordered the defendant to pay costs of $18,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, which was slightly above partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff brought an action for defamation, trespass, and nuisance against two neighbours arising from a dispute over a fence.

One defendant was noted in default and brought a motion to set aside the noting in default over a year later.

The other defendant brought a motion to amend her pleadings and withdraw admissions.

The court dismissed the first defendant's motion, finding no credible explanation for his extraordinary delay and noting his abusive behaviour.

The court granted the second defendant's motion to amend her pleadings and withdraw admissions, provided the amendments did not attempt to relitigate issues already decided in a related Small Claims Court action.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment was previously dismissed.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $38,152.77 for the motion, while the defendants argued for partial indemnity costs of $12,430.00.

The court found that the defendants acted unreasonably in bringing a motion for partial summary judgment that relied on competing affidavits where credibility was at issue.

Pursuant to Rule 20.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded the plaintiff costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $29,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim in an action for lost profits arising from the defendant's refusal to allow the plaintiff to bid on or be awarded two electrical contracting projects.

The defendant opposed certain amendments, arguing they asserted a new cause of action after the expiry of a limitation period.

The court granted leave to amend, finding that the proposed amendments merely provided additional facts and particulars arising out of the same factual matrix originally pleaded, and did not assert a new cause of action.

The applicant brought an application seeking damages for wrongful dismissal and unpaid RRSP contributions, arguing he was terminated without cause and entitled to three months' severance under his employment contract.

The respondent employer argued the termination was for just cause due to the applicant's abusive behaviour towards subordinates, and sought to have the application converted to an action and dismissed via summary judgment.

The court found that material facts regarding the alleged misconduct were in dispute and required credibility assessments that could not be resolved on a paper record.

Consequently, the court ordered the entire application to proceed to trial.

The applicant son sought to be appointed sole Guardian of Property and Guardian of Personal Care for his 87-year-old mother, who suffers from advanced dementia.

He also sought to remove his brother as a joint attorney for property.

The respondent brother sought to be appointed Guardian of Personal Care.

The court found no strong and compelling evidence of misconduct or neglect to justify removing the respondent brother as an attorney for property.

The court appointed both brothers as joint guardians of personal care and directed that the mother's emergency care plan remain consistent with the choice previously made by her late husband.

The Estate Trustees applied to pass their accounts for the Estate of Ingrid Loveman.

A beneficiary objected, alleging the Trustees breached their fiduciary duties by delaying the sale of the estate's primary asset (a house) to one of the Trustees, failing to account for rental income, and improperly charging the estate for litigation and carrying costs.

The court found that the purchasing Trustee preferred his own interests by delaying the house purchase, which caused unnecessary carrying costs and exposed the estate to a dependant's relief claim.

The court ordered the Trustees to personally bear the litigation costs and the carrying costs incurred after a reasonable closing date.

The Trustees were also ordered to account for uncollected rental income.

Trustee compensation was reduced to 1.75% due to these administrative failures.