Helen MacLeod-Beliveau

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant tenant for damages arising from the early termination of a commercial lease.

The tenant had vacated the premises without providing the required six months' notice or paying the 24 months' rent stipulated in the lease's early termination clause.

The tenant argued the landlord had forfeited the lease by changing the locks and counterclaimed for damages.

The court found the tenant had unilaterally terminated the lease and abandoned the premises, entitling the landlord to re-enter and claim the liquidated damages.

Summary judgment was granted to the landlord and the tenant's counterclaim was dismissed.

The County brought Rule 21 motions seeking a declaration that its winter maintenance contractor, Steve Walt Property Maintenance, breached their contract by failing to procure insurance naming the County as an additional insured.

The County also sought damages for defence costs and the right to appoint its own counsel due to a conflict of interest with Steve Walt and its insurer, Economical Mutual Insurance Company.

Economical argued the motion was inappropriate due to disputed material facts.

The court found the contract unambiguous, Steve Walt in breach, and granted the County damages for defence costs and the right to choose its own counsel due to a clear conflict of interest.

The plaintiff moved for an order to permit counsel to refer to audio transcription files and summaries from the court reporting system in closing arguments at trial, and to provide copies to opposing counsel and the trial judge, instead of using certified transcripts.

The motion was dismissed.

The court held that certified transcripts by an authorized transcriptionist are required, citing significant difficulties in deciphering audio, time-consuming review, increased costs, and potential issues on appeal if uncertified audio recordings were used.

The court emphasized the importance of certified transcripts for the integrity of the court record and efficiency.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a contested motion where the defendants successfully obtained independent medical examinations, but on terms largely advocated by the plaintiff.

The court found success was divided, with the plaintiff being "more successful" on the central issue of the conditions for the medical assessments, particularly regarding "ghostwriting" concerns.

Applying Rule 57, the court awarded the plaintiff partial fixed costs, acknowledging the legitimate differences of opinion on novel issues.

The defendant Jamie Macari moved for an order compelling the plaintiff to undergo two independent medical examinations (IMEs) and to pay a late cancellation fee for a missed appointment.

The plaintiff sought additional conditions for the IMEs, specifically regarding "ghost writing" of expert reports, and opposed paying the cancellation fee.

The court allowed the defendant's motion in part, imposing modified conditions for the IMEs to ensure expert reports are solely authored by the examining doctor and are compliant with Rules 33.06 and 53.03(2.1), and ordered the plaintiff to pay a reduced portion of the cancellation fee.

The applicant, a self-represented litigant, sought costs following the dismissal of the respondent's motion to change spousal support.

The court reviewed the principles for awarding costs to self-represented litigants, noting the applicant's extensive preparation and the respondent's inadequate financial disclosure which prolonged the trial.

The court found the applicant performed work comparable to a lawyer and awarded her $30,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis, calculated at a rate of $100 per hour for 313 hours of preparation, plus disbursements.

The offender pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing death after a collision that killed the victim.

The offender, a 34-year-old first-time offender who worked as a correctional officer and volunteer firefighter, was speeding and highly intoxicated at the time of the crash.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, sentencing the offender to 5 years in penitentiary and a 5-year driving prohibition.

The applicant sought a writ of habeas corpus with certiorari in aid to challenge his re-classification from minimum to medium security and subsequent transfer by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC).

The applicant argued the re-classification and transfer were unreasonable and unlawful due to incorrect file information affecting his Security Classification Scale (SRS) score.

The court found that the deprivation of liberty was reasonable and lawful.

It determined that while an initial error in the SRS score was acknowledged by CSC, the re-classification and transfer were ultimately justified based on a holistic assessment of institutional adjustment, escape risk, and public safety, overriding the SRS score with professional judgment.

The application for habeas corpus was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to establish a timetable for its summary judgment motion.

The defendants opposed, insisting on receiving the plaintiff's Affidavit of Documents first, citing Rule 30.03.

The court, referencing amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure and Supreme Court guidance on summary judgment, ruled that an Affidavit of Documents is not a prerequisite in the absence of a discovery plan or when a summary judgment motion is pending.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, setting a timetable for the summary judgment proceedings and dismissing the defendants' objection.

The plaintiff, injured in a motor vehicle accident, suffered chronic pain and pain-related depression, which was treated by her family doctor and a neuropsychologist.

The defendant moved for an independent psychiatric examination of the plaintiff by a specific psychiatrist, Dr. Monte Bail.

The motion was dismissed.

The court found insufficient evidence to warrant a psychiatric examination, noting the plaintiff had never been treated by a psychiatrist and her psychological condition had improved.

Granting the order would significantly delay the upcoming trial.

The court also made strong obiter comments that Dr. Bail would not have been permitted to conduct the examination due to previous judicial findings of lack of credibility and failure to adhere to expert duties under Rule 4.1.01.

The applicant, a federal offender, sought a declaration that he was eligible for accelerated parole review (APR) despite the regime's repeal by the Abolition of Early Parole Act.

He argued that because one of his offences was committed prior to the repeal, denying him APR violated his rights under s. 11(i) of the Charter.

The court dismissed the application, finding that because the applicant committed five additional offences after the repeal of APR, his expectation of liberty was altered by his own actions, not by retrospective legislative action.

Therefore, there was no variation in punishment and no breach of s. 11(i).

The applicant mother and respondent father both sought sole custody of their four-year-old child.

The mother also sought permission to relocate with the child to Alberta.

The court found that the father had a history of domestic violence and that the child had suffered physical injuries and exposure to marijuana while in the care of the father and his family members.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, permitted the relocation to Alberta, and ordered that the father have supervised access for a minimum of one week per year, along with electronic access.

The father was ordered to pay child support, reduced by 40% to account for his access costs.

At a status hearing under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff was required to show cause why its negligence action should not be dismissed for delay after more than two years of inactivity.

The plaintiff attributed the delay to severe financial hardship caused by the alleged environmental remediation failures of the defendant, which rendered the business insolvent and unable to fund litigation steps or financial statements until late 2013.

The court accepted the explanation as an acceptable reason for delay and found that the defendant had not demonstrated actual non-compensable prejudice.

The court also declined to determine a contested limitations defence at the status hearing on the limited evidentiary record.

The action was permitted to proceed subject to a strict timetable requiring the matter to be set down for trial by June 30, 2015.

The mother brought a motion to strike the father's Motion to Change due to his chronic failure to pay child support, spousal support, and multiple costs orders.

The father owed over $140,000 in arrears and costs, despite having the ability to pay.

The court found the father's non-compliance to be deliberate, willful, and blatant.

Applying Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court struck the father's Motion to Change, ordered him to pay all arrears and costs before bringing any future motions, and required him to post $25,000 in security for costs for any future proceedings.