H. Dhaliwal

This motion addressed whether a final order concerning child parenting and jurisdiction should be set aside due to lack of notice to the paternal grandmother, who had de facto care and control of the child in India.

The court set aside the parenting-related provisions of the final order, finding that the paternal grandmother, as a person with care and control, should have been named as a party and received notice.

However, the court affirmed Ontario's jurisdiction over the parenting dispute, determining the child's habitual residence remained in Ontario at the commencement of the original application and that Ontario was the more appropriate forum under the "balance of convenience" test, despite the child residing in India.

The plaintiff brought a motion for partial summary judgment, alleging the defendants breached two Agreements of Purchase and Sale for adjacent properties.

The defendants countered that the plaintiff repudiated the contracts by failing to comply with the Planning Act's subdivision control provisions, specifically regarding the retention of fee in abutting land.

The court found that the parties' clear intent was to treat the sale of the two merged parcels as a single transaction, and the plaintiff's statutory declaration did not contravene the Planning Act.

Therefore, the defendants' failure to close constituted a breach of contract.

Partial summary judgment was granted on the breach, with the issues of deposit forfeiture and damages reserved for trial.

The respondent sought to recover costs incurred in anticipation of a motion to set aside Minutes of Settlement that the applicant threatened but never brought.

The court found that costs incurred for preparing draft motion materials for a never-brought motion were not recoverable.

However, costs incurred in efforts to clarify the applicant's intention to proceed with the motion were recoverable, as the applicant's unreasonable actions caused significant delay and rendered settlement discussions unproductive.

The court awarded $3,500 in costs to the respondent.

This decision addresses an application by Nanaksar Satsang Sabha of Ontario (the Gurdwara) for the production of files from four law firms involved in prior litigation.

The central issue was the effect of a solicitor's lien on production requests, particularly concerning the validity of the lien when a solicitor withdraws from the record without cause or when the limitations period for fee recovery has expired.

The court ordered all four firms to produce their files.

It found that Teplitsky Colson LLP did not have a valid solicitor's lien because it initiated its removal from the record without demonstrating cause.

For Gray Whitley van der Valk, production was ordered with specific terms to preserve the value of its claimed lien until the resolution of the underlying fee dispute.