In default

The plaintiff, Leanne Aubin, brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant, James Bowie, her former criminal defence lawyer.

The plaintiff sought damages for breach of fiduciary duty, breaches of the Human Rights Code (sexual harassment), and defamation, as well as punitive damages.

The defendant was noted in default.

The court found the defendant liable for a staggering breach of fiduciary duty due to his repeated sexual propositions, sending an intimate photograph, and suggesting alcohol/drugs/sex when the plaintiff was in distress.

The court also found the defendant liable for sexual harassment under the Human Rights Code and for defamation through a social media chat where he disclosed confidential information and made false allegations.

The court awarded $75,000 for breach of fiduciary duty, $65,000 under the Human Rights Code, $30,000 for defamation, and $25,000 in punitive damages, totaling $195,000, plus $40,000 in costs.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for assault and battery after the defendant Broughton mistakenly identified the plaintiff as a man who had broken into the defendants' home earlier that morning.

The defendant Broughton confronted the plaintiff on the street, pushed him down, and beat him severely, causing a fractured eye socket.

The court found the plaintiff credible and concluded he was not the intruder.

The action against the defendant Broughton was allowed, with damages fixed at $20,000 for pain and suffering plus OHIP subrogated damages.

The action against the co-defendant was dismissed.

The court heard two openness applications regarding a young child with special needs who was placed for adoption.

The birth father sought monthly in-person contact, while the Office of the Children's Lawyer and the Children's Aid Society supported two visits per year.

The court considered the child's best interests, the need for stability in the adoptive home, and the adoptive parents' ability to comply with the order.

The court ordered a minimum of three in-person openness contacts per year between the child and the birth father, which may include the paternal grandmother.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for extended society care without access for a 22-month-old child who had been in care since birth.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking a six-month supervision order.

The Society argued that the mother's longstanding mental health issues and inconsistent access justified the order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that genuine issues for trial existed, particularly given the Society's acknowledgment that the mother's mental health had been 'fairly stable' since early 2018 and conflicting evidence regarding the quality of her access visits.

The court emphasized the highly cautionary approach required for summary judgment in child protection cases.

The Children's Aid Society of Hamilton brought a summary judgment motion within a status review application concerning three children.

The Society sought extended society care for the eldest child and custody for the two younger children with their maternal grandparents.

The mother opposed, requesting the children's return to her care.

The court found the children continued to be in need of protection due to the mother's history of physical harm, failure to engage with recommended services, and inconsistent access.

The motion was deemed suitable for summary judgment.

The court granted extended society care for the eldest child and custody of the two younger children to the maternal grandparents, with specified access arrangements for all parties.

The applicant brought a motion to change the child support provisions of a prior order, seeking updated child support and reimbursement for extraordinary expenses due to the respondent's default in providing income information and payments.

The court granted the requested adjustments to child support based on the respondent's imputed income and ordered payment of arrears for extraordinary expenses, as well as fixed monthly contributions for ongoing and future extraordinary expenses, including orthodontics.

The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that the 15-month-old child be made a Crown ward without access.

The mother was noted in default, and the father opposed the motion, seeking the child's return under supervision.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the parents' ongoing substance abuse issues, lack of stable housing, and failure to engage in services.

The court concluded that Crown wardship without access was in the child's best interests and granted the summary judgment.