Heather A. McGee

The plaintiff subcontractor sued the defendant contractor for unpaid invoices and registered a construction lien regarding a school gymnasium project.

The defendant counterclaimed for back charges due to the plaintiff's delays and failure to complete the contracted steel fabrication and erection work.

The court found the plaintiff breached the contract by failing to perform the work on schedule, entitling the defendant to back charges.

The court awarded the plaintiff a reduced amount of $20,000, calculated as the remaining contract balance less the defendant's proven back charges.

The applicant sought costs for an ex-parte motion where she obtained Certificates of Pending Litigation on five properties.

The court declined to award costs, finding that the urgency of the ex-parte motion was overstated, the applicant had not requested voluntary preservation prior to moving without notice, and the respondent acted reasonably by consenting to the certificates remaining on title once notified.

The trial determined whether a 2015 Separation Agreement should be set aside as a sham under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act, and if so, the parties' separation date.

The court found the Agreement to be a sham because the parties were not separated, did not intend to separate, and did not intend to be bound by its terms when it was signed, using it primarily for tax advantage.

Consequently, the Agreement was set aside.

The court determined the actual date of separation to be December 18, 2019, when the husband physically left the matrimonial home and formed the intention to separate, rejecting the earlier date claimed in the Agreement and the later dates proposed by the wife.

Following a trial of an issue regarding shareholder oppression and the valuation of shares, the applicant sought substantial indemnity costs of over $618,000.

The court found the applicant was only partially successful and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The court significantly reduced the requested quantum because the applicant's costs submissions lacked detail and the applicant engaged in unreasonable litigation conduct by refusing to allow experts to confer and resisting settlement efforts.

The court awarded the applicant $138,425 in costs, which included $2,500 for costs thrown away due to the respondent's improper communication with a witness during cross-examination.

The applicant father brought a motion for equal parenting time with the parties' two young children, while the respondent mother sought to restrict his time to alternate weekends.

The mother had previously removed the children to Prince Edward Island without notice and subsequently gatekept the father's parenting time upon their return to Ontario.

The court found that the mother's withholding of the children was not child-focused and that the children needed regular, frequent contact with both parents.

Applying the best interests of the child factors under the Children's Law Reform Act and referencing AFCC guidelines, the court ordered an alternating Week 1 and Week 2 schedule to ensure the children are not away from either parent for more than five days.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that the parties had been separated for over one year to proceed with a simple divorce application.

The respondent opposed, arguing the motion was premature and that an Ontario divorce would prejudice her claims in India.

The court found the parties had been separated for over one year, noted the respondent had withdrawn her annulment claim, and held there was no evidence of actual prejudice to justify withholding the divorce.

The applicant minority shareholder sought a determination of the purchase price for her 40% interest in a real estate holding corporation owned with her former spouse.

The court found that the respondent majority shareholder engaged in oppressive conduct by failing to provide financial disclosure, operating the corporation solely for the benefit of his separate operating company, and destroying corporate records.

To remedy the oppression, the court valued the applicant's shares at $1,832,054.60 without applying a minority discount.

Following a 22-day parenting trial and a withdrawn motion for contempt, the successful respondent father sought full recovery of his costs totaling $668,930.

The court found the applicant mother's litigation conduct to be unreasonable, including her misuse of a contempt motion and failure to accept a reasonable offer to settle.

The court awarded the respondent costs of $611,637, representing full recovery for the period after his offer to settle and for defending the contempt motion, and a partial recovery for the pre-offer period.

The court declined to order the applicant's counsel to pay the costs personally but granted the applicant leave to bring a motion against her counsel under Rule 24(9).

The plaintiff, Giang Long Nguyen, invested $100,000 in a trucking business venture with the defendants, Abdelraheem Adas and Krystalynn Kaur Manu (common-law spouses).

The defendants misrepresented their intentions, using the funds for personal expenses and a failed real estate investment.

A default judgment was initially obtained against both defendants, but later set aside for Mr. Adas.

At trial, the court found Mr. Adas liable for breach of fiduciary duty and civil fraud, concluding that he misused the funds and deliberately misled the plaintiff.

The court ordered Mr. Adas to repay the $100,000 jointly and severally with Ms. Manu, plus prejudgment interest.

This motion concerned a dispute between separated parents over their three-year-old daughter's parenting schedule and daycare placement.

The applicant father proposed a 2-2-3 parenting schedule and placement at Bright Beginnings Child Care, while the respondent mother sought a more complex schedule and placement at Saugeen Shores Childcare Centre.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" test and considering the AFCC Parenting Guidelines, granted the father's requests for both daycare placement and parenting schedule, finding his proposals offered greater stability, predictability, and balanced travel time for the child.

This is a trial decision concerning the allocation of garnished funds owed by the respondent to the applicant.

The parties had multiple outstanding debts from a prior divorce order, including child support, spousal support (lump sum and arrears), and property equalization payments.

The respondent argued that garnished funds should first be applied to spousal support due to its priority under the Creditors' Relief Act.

The court held that the Creditors' Relief Act's priority provisions apply to multiple creditors, not to the allocation of undifferentiated payments from a single debtor to multiple debts owed to the same creditor.

Applying the common law principle of apportionment, the court ruled that the applicant, as the creditor, had the discretion to allocate the garnished funds to maximize her recovery, specifically by applying them first to the property-related debts, allowing the lump sum spousal support to be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) and thus survive potential bankruptcy.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final consent order to terminate the respondent father's parenting time and relocate the child to Montreal.

The father sought sole decision-making and an equal parenting schedule.

The court found the mother had engaged in a pattern of high-conflict litigation, terminated the child's therapy, and failed to act in the child's best interests.

Relying on the 13-year-old child's strong views and preferences, the court granted the father sole decision-making responsibility and took the unusual step of leaving parenting time with the mother entirely to the child's discretion.

The mother's motion was dismissed, and she was ordered to pay child support.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision denying him benefits for a back injury following a workplace fall.

The Tribunal had found the fall was not a significant contributing factor to the injury, relying heavily on the applicant's delay in seeking medical treatment and reporting pain.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision unreasonable because it failed to account for uncontradicted medical evidence from the applicant's treating physician and physiotherapist.

The Court granted the application, set aside the decision, and, given the inevitable outcome and lengthy delay, declared the applicant entitled to benefits under s. 13(1) of the WSIA, remitting the matter only for the assessment of those benefits.

The appellant insurer appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision reinstating the respondent's Income Replacement Benefits.

The benefits had been suspended after the respondent failed to provide requested medical records.

The Tribunal found the respondent had a 'reasonable explanation' for the delay under s. 33(8)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Adjudicator applied the correct legal test for 'reasonable explanation' by considering both objective and subjective factors, and provided adequate reasons for the decision.

The appellant appealed an order made by an application judge concerning guardianship and property disputes.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in law by failing to provide any reasons for his decision, which rendered it incapable of appellate review.

Furthermore, the application judge breached procedural fairness by making orders on matters that were not requested in the pleadings and that contradicted a prior consent order, thereby violating the principle of res judicata.

The matter was remitted to a different judge.

Following a nine-week high-conflict parenting trial where the applicant father was wholly successful and the respondent mother was found in contempt and to have acted in bad faith, the court determined costs.

The father beat multiple offers to settle.

The court awarded the father costs on a full recovery basis for the trial and contempt motion, and partial recovery for pre-trial steps, fixing the total costs at $677,610 inclusive of HST and disbursements, to be set off against spousal support and equalization.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary parenting order to allow for unsupervised, expanded parenting time.

The applicant mother opposed, citing a history of severe family violence and the father's prior criminal convictions.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) recommended a stepped-up supervised parenting plan, which the father rejected.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding no compelling circumstances to alter the status quo or bypass the OCL's recommendations, and emphasized the need to protect the children's safety and well-being.

Following a successful motion by the applicant father for a Section 30 parenting assessment, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The applicant sought full recovery of $13,704.08 based on an offer to settle, while the respondent argued for no costs or a maximum of $5,000.

The court found the applicant's offer to settle was as favourable as the final order and that the respondent's conduct in opposing the motion was unreasonable.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $11,017.50 inclusive of HST.

The father appealed a final family arbitration award that resolved parenting, child support, spousal support, and property issues.

He alleged procedural unfairness, bias, and errors in the arbitrator's parenting and financial decisions.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The court held that the arbitrator's decisions, including imputing income due to the father's non-disclosure and awarding primary residence to the mother, were amply supported by the evidence and entitled to significant deference.

The applicant father brought a motion to enforce a final parenting order after the respondent mother breached it, resulting in the father not seeing the children for several months.

Instead of pursuing a contempt motion, the father sought a Section 30 assessment under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.

The court held that Rule 1(8) is the preferred, child-focused approach to a breach of a parenting order, avoiding the exacerbation of conflict inherent in contempt proceedings.

The court ordered a Section 30 assessment to determine the children's best interests and how to make the parenting schedule operative.