Ivan S. Bloom

The applicant sought to return their child to an equal week-about parenting schedule, citing urgency due to the pandemic.

The respondent consented to the return to the schedule but cross-moved for a Voice of the Child Report, a s. 30 Children’s Law Reform Act assessment, or a s. 112 Courts of Justice Act report.

The court granted the applicant's request for the immediate return to the established parenting schedule with police enforcement and ordered compliance with COVID-19 directives and non-disparagement.

The respondent's cross-motion for reports was dismissed without prejudice due to lack of reasonable notice and the absence of a case conference.

The applicant sought an urgent order for the sale of the matrimonial home and mortgage deferral due to dire financial circumstances exacerbated by the pandemic, and for the respondent's signature on sale documents to be dispensed with.

The court granted the applicant's motion under the Partition Act, finding the motion urgent and the respondent's proposed alternatives unrealistic, despite the parties no longer being "spouses" under the Family Law Act.

The applicant mother, who had primary de facto custody of the parties' child, brought a motion seeking court authorization to have the child vaccinated at an urgent care pediatric clinic during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The respondent father did not oppose vaccination but wanted it done by the child's regular doctor with his input.

The court found that it was in the child's best interests to be vaccinated under medical supervision, noting the regular pediatrician was not practicing during the pandemic.

The court granted the order and also awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs of $3,131.29 for a previous motion.

The applicant moved to vary existing interim orders to grant her primary residence of the children, alleging the respondent failed to comply with COVID-19 protocols.

The court found that the applicant did not prove a material change in circumstances on a balance of probabilities, as the evidence of non-compliance was largely hearsay.

The motion to vary was dismissed.

However, the court issued additional orders requiring both parties to comply with all applicable governmental directives and recommendations relating to COVID-19, specifically prohibiting children from visiting other households and restricting who could accompany the respondent during child exchanges.

The respondent father brought a motion for in-person and video access to the parties' child during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The applicant mother did not oppose the access but brought a cross-motion regarding vaccinations, which was adjourned due to short notice.

Applying the best interests of the child test and the principle of maximum contact under the Divorce Act, the court granted the respondent temporary access on alternating weekends and virtual access twice a week, subject to Covid-19 safety protocols.

A timetable was set for the cross-motion.

The court determined the costs of an appeal where success was divided.

The damages award in favour of the respondents had been reduced, but they remained substantially successful.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 and the principle of proportionality under Rule 1.04(1.1), noting the reasonably complex legal issues and the appellant's unsubstantiated allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation.

The respondents were awarded $13,821.19 in costs inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

The appellant purchaser appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding she breached an agreement of purchase and sale for a condominium unit and awarding the respondent vendors $25,000 in damages plus costs.

The appellant argued she was justified in refusing to close due to concealed Kitec plumbing and stained carpets.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on liability, finding the appellant knew of the plumbing and there was no evidence the carpet stains were concealed.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part on damages, holding the trial judge erred by failing to credit the $15,000 deposit against the damages, thereby reducing the award to $15,000.

The court also reduced the costs award to comply with the 15% statutory limit under the Courts of Justice Act.

The accused, Angella Marie Lewis, was found guilty by a jury of importing 1.955 kilograms of cocaine.

This decision outlines the reasons for her sentence.

The court considered the sentencing range for importing multi-kilograms of cocaine (6-8 years), aggravating factors including her lengthy criminal record (though with a significant gap), and mitigating factors such as her difficult family history, remorse, and restrictive bail conditions over four years.

The court also addressed ancillary orders for forfeiture, a weapons prohibition, and a DNA data bank order.

Following a jury conviction for importing cocaine, a Gardiner hearing was held to determine the quantum of cocaine imported by the accused for sentencing purposes.

The Crown asserted the accused imported four containers of cocaine, while the defense argued the containers might have been mixed up with those from a simultaneous investigation of another individual.

The court found the testimony of the border services officers credible and reliable, concluding the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four containers, totaling 1.955 kilograms of cocaine, were seized from the accused's luggage.

The applicant moved for an interim order for the partition and sale of a jointly owned property and for interim spousal support.

The parties cohabited for several years, during which the respondent financially supported the applicant while he obtained his degrees.

The court dismissed the motion for partition and sale, finding that a trial was necessary to determine the parties' respective beneficial interests in the property, especially given the imminent trial date.

The court granted the motion for interim spousal support on a needs basis, ordering the respondent to pay $1,458 per month retroactive to the date the application was served, but declined to order the respondent to secure the support with a life insurance policy.

The plaintiff condominium corporation moved to amend its statement of claim to add a claim for damages related to the repair and replacement of a transformer, alleging violations of environmental regulations and fraudulent concealment by a former director.

The motion was opposed by several defendants on the grounds that the new claim was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period and constituted an abuse of process due to a pending arbitration.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred as the limitation period began when its corporate solicitor received an order from Environment Canada in February 2014, putting it on notice of the damage, and that full quantification of damages was not required to start the clock.

The court also rejected the argument that a civil action was not an "appropriate means" to seek a remedy at that time.

The Applicant sought a temporary order for the children of the marriage to be placed in his care for 90 days, with no contact with the Respondent except as directed by a therapist, alleging parental alienation.

The Respondent opposed the motion.

The court considered whether the "material change in circumstances" test applied to a variation of a temporary, without prejudice order, ultimately accepting for the motion's purpose that the Applicant only needed to demonstrate the order was in the children's best interests.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Applicant had not provided sufficient clear evidence, particularly noting issues with the admissibility and weight of the counsellor's reports as expert evidence without proper voir dire and cross-examination.

The applicant brought a motion seeking interim spousal support, security orders against the respondent's estate, and an order for non-depletion of her equalization claim, citing urgency due to the respondent's terminal illness.

The court granted the motion to proceed before a case conference due to urgency and awarded interim spousal support of $547.00 per month, binding on the respondent and his estate.

However, the court declined to grant the additional security orders, noting the uncertain strength of the applicant's claims regarding spousal support delay and equalization limitation periods.

The interim support order was made reviewable in four months.

The Plaintiff, 1305268 Ontario Inc., moved for summary judgment seeking foreclosure on a mortgage against the Defendant, 823042 Ontario Inc. The Defendant argued that the mortgage enforcement was statute-barred by a 10-year limitation period, alleging that three letters purporting to renew the mortgage were fraudulent.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the authenticity of the renewal letters and the limitations defense.

The judge emphasized the necessity of *viva voce* evidence and credibility assessment, particularly from a key witness, Kenneth James, and drew an adverse inference from the Plaintiff's failure to call him.

The applicant sought to vary a consent order for spousal support and matrimonial home carrying costs, citing undue hardship and a material change in circumstances due to income loss and alleged hidden income by the respondent.

The court applied the material change test from L.M.P. v. L.S. and found that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving a material change on a balance of probabilities.

The motion was dismissed.

The respondent moved to vary a child support order and enforce an order for s. 7 expenses.

The court found a material change in circumstances, imputed income of $150,000 annually to the applicant due to significantly lower tax rates in Texas, and ordered child support for one child (Amina) conditional on her return to Canada.

The court also ordered the applicant to pay $36,928.50 (70.34%) of the s. 7 post-secondary education expenses for the other child (Aya), finding the expenses reasonable and the parent-child relationship not terminated for these purposes.

The Applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis due to the Respondent's unreasonable or bad faith conduct in financial disclosure during a family law proceeding that had settled by consent order.

The Respondent argued for parties to bear their own costs or for him to receive partial indemnity.

The court found the Respondent's conduct regarding disclosure to be unreasonable, though not in bad faith, as he was inattentive to his duty to make full and fair disclosure.

This unreasonable conduct was deemed to trump any success the Respondent might have had in the underlying litigation.

The court also addressed the retrospective application of changes to the Family Law Rules concerning costs and the principles governing "costs thrown away." The Applicant was awarded costs on a substantial recovery basis.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's negligence claim, arguing issue estoppel, abuse of process, and collateral attack based on a prior Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The Board had found the landlord breached maintenance obligations but did not find that the lack of a handrail caused the plaintiff's fall.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding it would be unjust to apply issue estoppel or abuse of process due to scant evidence, unrepresented parties, and lack of detailed reasoning at the Board.

The court also determined that the action was not a collateral attack, as the application of the Occupiers' Liability Act was a new issue not before the Board, and the Board's jurisdiction over that matter was questionable.

The defendant moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss all claims by 1198934 Ontario Inc. and specific claims by 1526806 Ontario Inc. for negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, punitive damages, and aggravated damages.

The court dismissed the claims by 1198934 Ontario Inc. due to lack of privity of contract and rejected an attempt to amend the claim for unjust enrichment as untimely.

Claims for aggravated damages were dismissed because corporations cannot suffer intangible injuries.

Claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation were dismissed due to an absence of evidence of loss or reliance.

However, the motion to dismiss the claim for punitive damages was denied, as it was intertwined with the breach of contract claim that was proceeding to trial, raising an unacceptable risk of inconsistent factual findings.

The parties separated after a marriage that began in 2004.

At trial, the sole issue was the equalization of net family properties under section 5 of the Family Law Act.

The court determined the valuation date to be February 9, 2014, when the applicant returned from a trip to find the respondent had left their apartment.

After assessing the credibility of the parties and valuing their respective assets and debts, the court calculated the applicant's net family property at zero and the respondent's at $6,886.00.

The court rejected the applicant's argument that an equal division would be unconscionable under section 5(6) and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $3,443.00.