Harrison S. Arrell

The child protection agency brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that the child be made a Crown Ward without access to the biological parents.

The mother opposed the motion and requested that the matter proceed to trial, while the father was in default and did not participate.

Applying Family Law Rule 16 and the test for summary judgment in child protection proceedings, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Evidence from a parenting capacity assessment and consistent observations of social workers demonstrated that the mother had not developed the ability to safely parent despite extensive services and supports.

The court concluded that the child’s best interests required permanent Crown wardship without access to allow prompt adoption.

The Crown brought an application to admit the audio and written statements of a deceased witness under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court accepted that necessity was established because the declarant had died, but considered whether the statements met the threshold reliability requirement.

The court held that the unsigned and undated handwritten statements lacked sufficient indicia of reliability and authenticity and were therefore inadmissible.

However, the recorded audio interview was found sufficiently reliable and probative, given its voluntary nature, contemporaneity, detailed content, and potential corroboration by other witnesses.

The audio statement was admitted subject to editing to remove speculative or prejudicial portions.

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 applicant brought a motion seeking to attribute increased income to the respondent for purposes of increasing child and spousal support, alleging that income was being diverted through businesses operated with the respondent’s current spouse.

Evidence indicated the companies shared operations, facilities, and financial arrangements, raising concerns that corporate structures were being used to shield income.

The respondent argued the issue should be determined at trial and that interim attribution would be prejudicial.

The court held that interim orders are appropriate pending trial and found the respondent’s declared income inconsistent with his lifestyle and business arrangements.

The court attributed income of $120,000 and ordered interim child and spousal support increases, and awarded partial indemnity costs for a previous motion.

Following a multi‑action civil trial arising from failed investment schemes, the plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after obtaining findings of fraud and fraudulent conveyance against the principal defendant.

The defendants had consented to judgment for the principal investment amounts but contested interest and liability for fraud.

The court had found that the principal defendant committed fraud and that he and his spouse fraudulently conveyed their home to defeat creditors.

Considering the sanctionable conduct of the defendants and the principles governing elevated costs, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs.

The court ordered costs of $92,267.75 and apportioned partial responsibility to one defendant for the fraudulent conveyance portion of the litigation.

The self-represented plaintiff brought motions for partial summary judgment in two related civil actions arising from municipal employment disputes.

In the first action, the plaintiff alleged breach of a mediated settlement agreement and defamation arising from public statements made by municipal officials and sought damages and an injunction enforcing a confidentiality clause.

In the second action, the plaintiff sought summary judgment for wrongful dismissal against a municipality and sanctions for failure to comply with a court-ordered timetable.

The court held that genuine issues requiring a trial existed in both actions because the disputes depended heavily on credibility and conflicting evidence regarding the parties’ intentions and the nature of the employment relationship.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate, though the court imposed modest sanctions against the municipality for breaching the litigation timetable.

Multiple plaintiffs brought civil actions arising from investments made with the principal defendant and related corporations that promised guaranteed monthly returns from foreign exchange trading.

The court found that the defendant misappropriated investor funds, used them for personal expenses and charitable donations, and provided false account statements while concealing losses.

The evidence established a fraudulent scheme in which investor funds were pooled and diverted without authorization, resulting in significant losses.

The court further found that the transfer of the defendant’s home to his spouse occurred with the intent to defeat creditors and therefore contravened the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiffs including contractual interest, the conveyance of the property was declared void, and the claims against the spouse were dismissed for lack of evidence of involvement.

The Public Guardian and Trustee sought court approval of a proposed settlement of a long-running personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident and requested appointment as guardian of property under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.

The injured party opposed both the settlement and the guardianship appointment.

The court reviewed extensive medical evidence and litigation history, including expert capacity assessments and prolonged procedural delays.

It concluded the settlement was reasonable and in the best interests of the injured party given evidentiary risks and the age of the litigation.

The court also found the respondent incapable of managing property and appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as guardian of property.

Following a motion in a constructive dismissal action concerning the return of a document claimed to be protected by solicitor-client privilege, the court had ruled in favour of the defendant and ordered the plaintiff to return the document and remove it from the record.

The parties could not agree on costs, requiring a further determination.

The court rejected arguments that the motion produced mixed results or involved a novel legal issue due to the electronic nature of the document.

Substantial indemnity costs were declined as the plaintiff’s conduct did not warrant sanction.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendant in the amount of $3,500 inclusive of taxes and disbursements, payable at the conclusion of the action.

In a costs-only decision following a successful summary judgment and possession order under a mortgage, the court determined the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The moving party sought substantial indemnity costs based on contractual entitlement and a Rule 49 offer, while also alleging bad faith and unreasonable delay under Rule 20.06.

The court rejected findings of bad faith or unreasonable conduct, but held the contract and Rule 49 consequences supported substantial indemnity costs.

After applying Rule 57.01 factors and proportionality, the court reduced the amount claimed and fixed fair and reasonable costs at $10,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements, payable forthwith.

The accused brought a motion to sever two counts on an indictment alleging aggravated assault against one infant and second-degree murder of another infant.

The Crown opposed severance and sought admission of similar fact evidence between the counts.

The court applied the governing principles on similar fact evidence, including the requirement that probative value outweigh prejudicial effect, and assessed the degree of similarity between the incidents, the evidentiary nexus, and the likelihood of coincidence.

The court concluded that the similarities between the injuries, circumstances of caregiving, and opportunity created a strong inference that the same perpetrator committed both offences.

The probative value of the evidence outweighed any potential prejudice, which could be addressed through jury instructions.

In an employment constructive dismissal action, the defendant employer brought a motion seeking the return of internal emails and a declaration that they were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The emails had been copied by the plaintiff’s spouse after they appeared on the employer’s computer while he was assisting with a technical task.

The plaintiff argued that privilege had been waived through recklessness, disclosure to a consultant, and fairness considerations.

The court held the emails were privileged communications relating to legal advice and that the consultant acted as an agent of the client, preserving privilege.

The court also found the documents were deliberately taken without authority and ordered their return and deletion, ruling they could not be used in the litigation.