Ian R. Mang

Two subcontractors sued a prime contractor for breach of oral contracts relating to a municipal winter road maintenance contract.

The plaintiffs alleged their arrangements to supply trucks and operators were for the same five‑season duration as the contractor’s agreement with the municipality, while the defendant argued the arrangements were terminable at will.

The court held that the parties’ conduct, including deposits corresponding to the five‑year municipal contract and payment structures flowing from that contract, objectively demonstrated fixed‑term agreements.

The defendant’s termination after one season constituted breach of contract.

Damages representing lost profits for the remaining four seasons, subject to mitigation, were awarded.

This is a ruling on a preliminary jurisdictional issue concerning whether a motion to change a custody order should be heard in the Ontario Court of Justice or the Superior Court of Justice.

The original order was made by the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court Branch in Hamilton pursuant to section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, granting custody to the applicants with access to the respondent mother at their discretion.

The respondent mother sought to vary the order.

The court determined that since a section 57.1 order is deemed to be a custody order under the Children's Law Reform Act, and the original order was made in the Superior Court of Justice, any variation of that order must proceed in the Superior Court of Justice.

The motion was transferred to the Superior Court of Justice in Milton.

Two plaintiffs brought motions for summary judgment in related actions alleging breach of oral contracts for the provision of equipment and personnel for municipal snow removal services.

The plaintiffs asserted that the agreements were fixed‑term contracts for five years that were prematurely terminated, while the defendants argued the arrangements were terminable at will.

The court found the evidentiary record contained significant conflicts regarding the formation and terms of the alleged oral agreements, the circumstances of termination, and issues of damages and mitigation.

Questions of credibility and potential personal liability of corporate principals also required factual assessment.

The court held that these genuine issues for trial made the actions unsuitable for summary judgment.

The Supreme Court of Canada considered whether a person can be a party to the offence of conspiracy under s. 21(1) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant, a youth convicted of conspiracy to commit murder for assisting two sisters in planning to kill their mother, argued that party liability should not apply to conspiracy.

The Court held unanimously that party liability to conspiracy is an offence known to Canadian law, but adopted the narrower Trieu model, limiting such liability to aiding or abetting the formation of the agreement or assisting new members to join a pre-existing agreement, and rejecting the broader McNamara approach extending liability to furthering the conspiracy's unlawful object.

Although the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on party liability, the curative proviso applied because the evidence of the appellant's membership in the conspiracy was overwhelming.

The appellant father appealed a decision ordering ongoing and retroactive child support for an adult child with severe disabilities.

The appellate court upheld the finding that the child qualified for support under s. 31 of the Family Law Act because her participation in an adapted educational program constituted full-time education in light of her medical limitations.

The court also upheld the retroactive support award based on the father’s blameworthy conduct in failing to disclose income increases, consistent with the principles in DBS v. SRG.

However, the court held that the impact of the adult child’s Ontario Disability Support Program benefits on the quantum of support had not been properly analyzed and required further evidentiary consideration.

That issue was remitted to the Ontario Court of Justice for determination while the remainder of the appeal was dismissed.

The moving party sought an order under Rules 15.03(4) and (5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure declaring that his former lawyers had no right to assert a lawyer’s possessory lien over documents belonging to him.

The law firm had represented the moving party in two civil actions and claimed unpaid legal fees exceeding $150,000, asserting a lien over litigation documents after being discharged without cause.

The court held that the law firm was entitled to assert the lien given the material unpaid balance and the circumstances of discharge.

However, the court noted that a substantial portion of the accounts may be statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and reduced the potential exposure accordingly.

The motion was conditionally resolved by permitting release of the documents if the moving party granted a collateral mortgage as security for up to $75,000; otherwise the motion would be dismissed.

A temporary care and custody motion under the Child and Family Services Act concerning two children, J.B. (age 14) and S.B. (age 12), whose parents have a lengthy history of conflict spanning approximately eight to nine years.

The children's emotional distress, particularly J.B.'s suicidal ideation and hospitalization, was directly linked to parental conflict over school choice and ongoing litigation.

The court determined that J.B. was at risk of emotional harm if returned to his father's care, as the father continued to involve the child in parental disputes despite court proceedings being ongoing.

The court ordered J.B. to remain in the temporary care of the society with supervised access to both parents, and S.B. to remain with his mother under society supervision.