James Anderson

The respondent, Ms. Mbom, moved for summary judgment seeking an annulment of her marriage to the applicant, Dr. Ikpong, and orders for child support arrears and ongoing child support.

Dr. Ikpong opposed the annulment, arguing he was not previously married, and sought a divorce.

The court found Dr. Ikpong's argument regarding a Nigerian jactitation of marriage decree to be a collateral attack on a prior Quebec Superior Court divorce judgment involving his first wife.

The court granted the annulment, determining the marriage between Dr. Ikpong and Ms. Mbom was void ab initio due to Dr. Ikpong's subsisting prior marriage.

The court also ordered Dr. Ikpong to pay ongoing child support and arrears, rejecting his claim for a credit for a vehicle purchase.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a motion for summary judgment based on res judicata, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendant relied on an offer to settle for a dismissal without costs and alleged the plaintiff made unproven allegations of dishonest conduct.

The court declined to award elevated costs, finding the plaintiff's response to the motion was reasonable and her allegations were relevant to the context of the motion.

The defendant was awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $9,600.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's civil claim for the return of approximately $190,000 transferred during their relationship.

The defendant argued the claim was barred by res judicata, as the issue of the unreturned money was raised and determined in their prior family law trial regarding spousal support.

The court granted the motion, finding that both issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel applied.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to relieve against the operation of res judicata, emphasizing the importance of finality in family law proceedings and preventing duplicative litigation.

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action.

The action arose from a Facebook post in which the defendant alleged the plaintiff had sexually, physically, and emotionally abused her during their marriage.

The court found that while the expression related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff demonstrated that his claim had substantial merit and that the defendant's defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege could realistically fail.

The court concluded that the severe harm to the plaintiff's career and reputation outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.

The motion was dismissed, allowing the defamation action to proceed.

The Estate Trustee sought directions from the court regarding the interpretation and distribution of two estates following the murder of the testators by their adopted son.

The central issue was the application of the criminal forfeiture rule (slayer rule) and whether the estates should be held in trust for the murderer's potential unborn children or accelerated to alternate beneficiaries.

The court applied the implied intention approach, ruling that the murderer was disentitled from any benefit.

It further determined that the gifts to the murderer's unborn issue should also fail due to public policy and the absence of living issue at the time of disentitlement, thereby accelerating the distribution of the estates to the next lineal beneficiaries (the testatrix's brothers), subject to specific annuity provisions.

Following a motion where the defendant was completely successful, the court considered written submissions on costs.

The defendant sought costs based on a prior settlement offer made to the plaintiff.

The court awarded the defendant costs on a partial indemnity scale, noting the matter was not overly complex and the conduct of the parties was not exemplary, fixing costs at $4,268.82 plus HST and disbursements.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's civil action, which included claims for vehicle ownership, unjust enrichment, malicious prosecution, and defamation.

The parties had previously resolved their matrimonial dispute in family court, which included an order regarding the vehicle.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, finding that the plaintiff's civil claims were barred by cause of action estoppel under the doctrine of res judicata, as they arose from the same facts and ought to have been litigated in the family proceedings.

The parties, who are family members, disputed which real estate agent should list the matrimonial home for sale.

The respondents were successful on the motion and sought costs.

The applicant argued costs should be postponed until ancillary issues were resolved by a Master.

The court declined to postpone costs and awarded partial indemnity costs to one respondent and substantial indemnity costs to the other respondent from the date of her Rule 49 offer to settle.

The parties, who are family members, were in an acrimonious dispute regarding the sale of a mutually-owned home and could not agree on a real estate agent.

The applicant opposed severing the lot, while the property had significant potential for severance to maximize value.

The court reviewed valuation reports from two proposed agents and an appraiser.

The court selected the agent who recognized the property's potential for severance, finding this approach would best achieve the highest fair market value.

The court ordered the property to be listed with that agent and referred remaining issues to the Master.

The self-represented applicant sought an extension of time to file a notice of motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order that dismissed her motion for third-party disclosure and ordered costs against her.

The court applied the Mauldin factors and found that while the applicant had an intention to appeal and an explanation for the delay, granting the extension would cause significant prejudice to the respondent by delaying the scheduled trial.

The court also found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the underlying order.

The motion was dismissed with costs reserved to the trial judge.

The defendant brought a motion seeking an order for the plaintiff to return jewellery upon payment of a Quebec default judgment, which had been recognized and ordered enforceable in Ontario.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it constituted a collateral attack on prior final judgments and an abuse of process, as the defendant had failed to appeal or vary any of the previous orders.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and a default judgment.

The self-represented defendant had attempted to file a Statement of Defence and Notice of Intent to Defend but failed due to procedural errors and a misunderstanding of the court's administrative dismissal process.

The court found the defendant had a plausible excuse for the default, moved promptly upon learning of the judgment, and had an arguable defence on the merits.

The motion was granted, the noting in default and default judgment were set aside, and the defendant was granted leave to file a Statement of Defence.