Ian Carter

The defendants 1995636 Ontario Inc. and Lisa Bailey brought a motion seeking a stay of proceedings due to the plaintiff's alleged failure to timely disclose multiple settlement agreements with another defendant, 2495048 Ontario Inc. In the alternative, they sought severance of claims against them, arguing their involvement was discrete.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the undisclosed agreements did not "entirely alter the landscape of the litigation" or change the adversarial position of the parties into a cooperative one.

The court also dismissed the motion for severance, determining that the test for joinder was met due to common questions of fact and law and interconnectedness between the claims across multiple properties, promoting efficiency and avoiding inconsistent judgments.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking interim parenting orders, and the respondent mother filed a cross-motion for interim relief.

The parties reached partial agreement, narrowing the issues to the expansion of the father's parenting time, including wrap-around weekends and mid-week overnights, and holiday schedules.

The court, applying the best interests of the child principle under the Children’s Law Reform Act, ordered an incremental increase in the father's parenting time, including an additional weekend overnight commencing in September and an every-other-week Wednesday overnight commencing in January 2024.

The court also made an interim order for Easter holiday parenting time and deferred decisions on other long weekends and summer holidays.

The appellant, Hany Komy, appealed his convictions for sexual assault and assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding his credibility.

The Superior Court of Justice found that while the trial judge did misapprehend some evidence concerning the appellant's testimony about a complainant's hiring and training, this misapprehension was not material to the overall credibility assessment.

The trial judge had numerous other valid reasons for her negative credibility finding, including the appellant's combative demeanor, evasiveness, self-serving answers, and failure to comply with the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Applicant Father brought a motion seeking interim orders regarding parenting time, decision-making, and communication, and to strike portions of the Respondent Mother’s pleadings for failing to provide court-ordered disclosure.

The Mother filed a cross-motion addressing similar issues.

The court granted the Father increased parenting time, ordered the Mother to provide full consent for the child's developmental services, and compelled her to complete outstanding financial disclosure.

The Mother was also ordered to pay the Father's costs due to her non-compliance with disclosure orders.

The court declined to grant sole decision-making responsibility to either parent, leaving that issue for a future trial.

The appellant, Ali Mankal, appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle while impaired by drug.

The appeal centered on whether the trial judge materially misapprehended the Drug Recognition Expert's (DRE) opinion evidence regarding the cause of pinpoint pupils.

The defence argued that the impairment, including pinpoint pupils, could be attributed to a concussion, while the trial judge concluded it was solely due to drug impairment, relying on a misinterpretation of the DRE's testimony.

The appellate court found that the trial judge's misapprehension of this critical evidence played an essential part in the conviction, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

Following a decision staying the applicant's application pending payment of arrears, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondent was successful in obtaining the stay and was presumptively entitled to costs.

However, because success was divided on the issues raised during the motion, the court apportioned costs and ordered the applicant to pay $4,500 to the respondent.

Both parties brought motions for interim relief in a family law proceeding.

The mother sought sole decision-making, retroactive child support, and orders regarding passports and photographs.

The father sought equal parenting time, alleging parental alienation by the mother.

The court declined to make an interim order for decision-making or to change the parenting schedule, finding insufficient evidence of parental alienation at the interim stage.

The court ordered the father to sign passport renewals and return certain photographs, while leaving the issue of retroactive child support to the trial judge.

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant mother sought sole decision-making authority, primary residence, child support, spousal support, and division of property.

The parties have three children, two of whom have disabilities, with one requiring a life-support machine.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making authority and primary residence.

The respondent was ordered to pay ongoing child support, retroactive child support, a fixed monthly amount for Section 7 expenses, and ongoing spousal support.

The claim for pension division was deferred pending an expert valuation report.

The moving party father brought a motion to find the responding party mother in contempt for failing to facilitate his parenting time under a 2018 order.

The mother argued she had a legitimate excuse because the child was extremely resistant to attending the father's home, and police had declined to force the child to go.

The court found that while the mother intentionally breached the order by failing to bring a motion to change the parenting schedule sooner, it exercised its discretion to declare a breach rather than make a formal finding of contempt, noting contempt is a remedy of last resort.

The applicant brought a motion for the partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home, while the respondent brought a cross-motion for interim exclusive possession.

The parties had been separated for several years, and the respondent had resided in the home since 2014.

The court found that the respondent did not meet the test for exclusive possession under section 24(3) of the Family Law Act, as there were no dependent children and no evidence of alternate accommodation unavailability.

The court ordered the partition and sale of the home, noting that a claim for permanent exclusive possession was unrealistic and there was no valid reason to delay the sale.