Heather J. Williams

The plaintiff sought default judgment against a chiropodist who performed allegedly unnecessary and harmful stent insertion surgery on both of his feet.

The defendant failed to deliver a statement of defence.

The court granted default judgment, finding the pleaded facts established negligence and lack of informed consent.

The court awarded $150,000 in general damages, $81,624 for past loss of income, $180,000 for future loss of income, plus prejudgment interest and costs.

The garnishee brought a motion to reinstate its appeal of an associate judge's order, which had been struck by the registrar for failure to file a motion confirmation form.

The creditor brought a cross-motion to strike the garnishee's affidavit and for judgment.

The court found that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not clearly require a motion confirmation form for an appeal of an interlocutory order of an associate judge, and the creditor should have consented to the reinstatement.

The court granted the motion to reinstate the appeal and dismissed the creditor's motion.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a previous order to reflect that the parties' son's primary residence had changed to her home, and sought retroactive child support.

The respondent father argued the mother was intentionally under-employed and opposed the support calculations.

The court found the son's primary residence had been with the mother since February 2020 with the father's consent, constituting a material change in circumstances.

The court rejected the father's claim of intentional under-employment, finding the mother's reduced income was due to health issues.

The court ordered the father to pay $33,469.08 in child support arrears and ongoing support of $714 per month.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of defence and counterclaim in an action by the plaintiff bank to enforce loan agreements.

The proposed amendments sought to plead that all defendants suffered damages, add a claim for the tort of deceit, and expand pleadings regarding breach of honesty and good faith.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the amendments were statute-barred, an abuse of process, and untenable at law.

The court granted leave for all amendments, finding they either particularized existing claims or were based on newly discovered facts with a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The defendants were ordered to pay $1,050 plus HST for the costs of the plaintiff preparing an amended reply.

The applicant sought disclosure of medical and legal records relating to her late mother's estate, alleging suspicious circumstances and lack of capacity surrounding a 2015 will that disinherited her.

The executor provided evidence that the mother changed her will after discovering the applicant had improperly transferred joint investment accounts while acting as her attorney for property.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet the minimal evidentiary threshold required to put the estate to the burden of proving the will in solemn form.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer two questions refused at his examination for discovery in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant sought production of the plaintiff's academic records to verify his computer science degree, which underpinned his loss of income claim, and childhood medical records from SickKids Hospital regarding a prior head injury.

The court granted the motion, finding both sets of records relevant to the issues of damages and causation.

The mother brought an urgent motion seeking to have the parties' eight-year-old daughter returned to her full-time care before the start of the school year.

The daughter had been living with the father since June on what the mother claimed was a temporary basis.

The court found no urgency, noting the mother failed to establish the placement was temporary and that the impending sale of the matrimonial home created uncertainty about the daughter's future school district.

The motion was dismissed, and the daughter was ordered to remain in the father's care on an interim basis pending involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The plaintiff sought default judgment against nine persons in an action for constructive dismissal.

However, only the Crown was named in the title of proceeding, and the plaintiff had not complied with the notice requirements under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019.

The court adjourned the motion, directing the plaintiff to consider whether the parties were properly named and requiring her to serve any future default judgment motion materials on the defendants.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to temporarily relocate to Dubai for 11 months with the parties' 10-year-old daughter to accept a teaching contract.

The respondent father opposed the motion, raising concerns about the UAE not being a Hague Convention signatory, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the impact on his relationship with the child.

Applying the relocation provisions of the Divorce Act, the court found that the temporary relocation was in the child's best interests, noting the educational and cultural benefits, and granted the motion with conditions to ensure the child's return and the maintenance of the father's relationship through videoconferencing.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce a $200,000 settlement under Rule 49.09, arguing they had accepted a 2016 offer from the defendants in 2020.

The court found that while the 2016 letter contained a valid Rule 49 offer that remained open for acceptance, the plaintiffs' purported acceptance in 2020 introduced new terms regarding mutual releases and costs involving parties not represented by the offeror's counsel.

Consequently, the purported acceptance was a counter-offer, and no agreement on essential terms was reached.

The motion to enforce the settlement was dismissed.

This decision addresses a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion to strike a jury notice as premature.

The parties had initially agreed to partial indemnity costs for the motion, but the defendant, having successfully opposed the motion, sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court considered the defendant's offers to settle, noting they did not trigger Rule 49 consequences.

Despite the defendant's success, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiff's refusal of the offers was not unreasonable given the rapidly evolving legal landscape concerning jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic and the defendant's shifting position.

Partial indemnity costs of $4,000 were awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff sought to amend her statement of claim to add TQ Landscapes as a defendant, alleging she slipped on ice in a parking lot.

TQ Landscapes argued the claim was statute-barred due to the expiration of the limitation period.

The court found the plaintiff subjectively discovered her claim against TQ Landscapes on March 5, 2019, when she received documents identifying TQ as the snow removal contractor.

However, the court was unable to determine the date a reasonable person would have discovered the claim, thus allowing the amendment but permitting TQ Landscapes to plead a limitation defence.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's jury notice due to the suspension of civil jury trials in Ottawa caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiff argued that the delay in obtaining a jury trial date caused her financial prejudice under the Insurance Act.

The court found the motion premature because the parties were not yet ready for trial, requiring updated medical and actuarial reports.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to bring a similar motion once the action was trial-ready.

Following a family law trial with divided success, both self-represented parties sought costs.

The father was primarily successful on parenting issues, while the mother was primarily successful on financial issues.

The court found the mother's conduct regarding parenting issues unreasonable, but noted the father should have conceded certain financial obligations earlier.

Given the divided success, the parties' conduct, and the amounts claimed, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The defendants in a medical malpractice action brought a motion for the production of documents from the plaintiffs' lawyer's file prior to cross-examinations on affidavits.

The affidavits were filed in support of the plaintiffs' pending motion to extend the time to set the action down for trial.

The defendants argued the plaintiffs waived privilege by referring to the lawyer's steps to advance the litigation.

The court found a limited waiver of litigation privilege regarding the fact and timing of the lawyer's communications with medical experts, but held that the plaintiffs were not required to produce the corroborating documents prior to the cross-examination.

The motion was largely dismissed, with the plaintiffs ordered only to have redacted corroborating documents available at the cross-examination.

Following a motion and cross-motion regarding parenting time, decision-making authority, and child support where success was divided, the father sought partial indemnity costs of $32,285.16.

The mother argued no costs should be awarded due to divided success and the father's conduct.

The court found the father was the more successful party overall, particularly on the primary issues of parenting time and decision-making authority.

After considering the factors under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, including the parties' behaviour, time spent, and proportionality, the court ordered the mother to pay the father fixed costs of $18,000.

Lily Klassen brought a motion in her family law application seeking occupation rent, consolidation of her family law proceeding with a civil action brought by Kyle's parents (Henry and Beverley Klassen) for loan repayment, striking the jury notice in the civil action, and applying the Family Law Rules to the combined case.

The court dismissed the request for occupation rent without prejudice, finding the issue better suited for trial.

However, the court granted the consolidation of the two proceedings to be tried together in Family Court, struck the jury notice in the civil action, and ordered that the Family Law Rules apply to the trial, citing the risk of inconsistent findings and the efficient use of judicial resources, especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on court operations.

This trial addressed parenting arrangements, child support, and loan repayment between separated parents.

The court ordered a parallel parenting regime, granting the mother decision-making for education and the father for health, with extracurricular decisions alternating.

The children's time with the father was gradually increased to an equal "2-2-5-5" schedule during the school year and "week about" during the summer, and a parenting coordinator was appointed.

The father was ordered to pay accumulated special and extraordinary expenses and to repay loans from the mother's parents, with ongoing child support based on an income offset.

The court found the mother's animosity towards the father negatively impacted the children and her decision-making.

The landlord brought an urgent motion to enforce a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order despite the province-wide COVID-19 eviction moratorium.

The LTB had previously terminated the tenancy due to willful damage to the unit and threats to safety, including suspected drug-related activity and a high volume of visitors.

The court found that the tenant's conduct, which included breaking windows and ignoring pandemic-related physical distancing, constituted urgent and compelling circumstances justifying an exception to the moratorium.

The motion was granted and the Sheriff was directed to expedite the eviction.

The applicant sought an order compelling the respondent, the deceased's common-law spouse, to formally consent to or object to his appointment as trustee of the intestate estate.

The respondent had not returned a renunciation document but clearly opposed the applicant's appointment.

The court granted the application, ordering the respondent to file a notice of objection within 10 days, failing which she would be deemed to have consented.

The court also flagged potential issues regarding the applicant's Quebec residency and the respondent's potential dependants' relief claim under the Succession Law Reform Act.