James A. Ramsay

The applicant brought a motion to change a 2008 spousal support order, seeking to reduce his obligation to nil retroactively and ongoing due to his asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

The court found no basis for a retroactive reduction, noting a similar motion was dismissed in 2014.

However, accepting that the applicant's condition had worsened and he would reach the expected retirement age of 65 the following year, the court ordered that spousal support be terminated effective June 30, 2018.

The defendants unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment.

The plaintiff, Pachino Construction Co. Ltd., sought costs for that motion.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $40,000 to the plaintiff, finding the defendants' position unreasonable and their conduct reprehensible, particularly regarding false information provided by one defendant's wife.

The court ordered the costs to be paid within 30 days, regardless of the ultimate trial outcome.

This trial decision addresses disputes over the date of separation, equalization of net family property, and retroactive child support.

The court determined the separation date as May 1, 2013, rejecting the applicant's earlier claim due to inconsistent actions like marriage counselling and joint debt renewal.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $21,802 for equalization and $1,168 for retroactive child support, with RRSP withdrawals included in Line 150 income for support calculations.

The matrimonial home was ordered partitioned and sold, and joint custody of the remaining child was granted.

Claims for spousal support, rental income, and occupation rent were dismissed.

This decision addresses the applicant's request for costs following successful litigation where she re-established a separation agreement regime and the respondent unsuccessfully sought to vary child support and residence terms.

The applicant had previously offered to settle for the exact outcome achieved.

The court awarded the applicant costs, fixing them at $3,000, to be paid forthwith by the respondent and enforced as child support.

The children's aid society apprehended a child and applied for a finding that the child was in need of protection.

The society, the father, and the paternal grandmother all sought temporary care and custody of the child.

The court found that both the father and the grandmother had charge of the child immediately before the intervention.

Due to the parents' history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health crises, the court concluded there was a risk of harm if the child was returned to the parents.

The court ordered that the child remain in the temporary care of the paternal grandmother pursuant to section 51(2)(c) of the Child and Family Services Act.

In a divorce proceeding, the respondent father moved to vary child support based on a unilateral change he made to the access schedule, keeping the younger child overnight on Sundays.

The applicant mother cross-moved to enforce the terms of their memorandum of understanding.

The court granted the mother's motion and dismissed the father's, finding no pressing need for the unilateral change and no justification for a change in child support.

The Children's Aid Society moved for temporary care and custody of a newborn child pending its appeal of a motion judge's order that placed the child with the parents under supervision.

The Society argued the motion judge erred by omitting a statement of the plans of care and sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding the mother's mental health and the paternal grandfather's history of allowing a sex offender to reside in his home.

Applying a modified test for a stay pending appeal, the court found a serious issue to be tried based on the fresh evidence and concluded that the risk of irreparable harm to the child outweighed the harm of temporary separation from the parents.

The motion was granted, and the child was placed in the Society's care pending the appeal.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for equitable set-off.

The plaintiff sought to set off a $69,000 costs award it owed to the defendants from a previous unsuccessful action against a $416,000 judgment debt owed by one of the defendants to the plaintiff.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed regarding whether the costs were actually owed to the defendant spouse and whether the claims were so closely connected that it would be manifestly unjust not to allow the set-off.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding her liable for defamation after she made a false sexual assault complaint to the police against the respondent.

On appeal, she sought to introduce a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board decision as fresh evidence and argued the trial judge relied on gender stereotypes and misapplied the test for malice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer test, the trial judge properly assessed credibility based on inconsistencies rather than stereotypes, and the finding of express malice was supported by the evidence.

Following a previous endorsement granting the respondent's motion for an extension of time to file a financial statement, the court received written submissions on costs.

The court had ordered costs payable to the applicant as a term of indulgence rather than for bad faith.

The court fixed the costs of the motion at $1,500, payable forthwith by the respondent.

The appellant moved for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment and for leave to amend her certificate respecting evidence.

The delay in filing the appeal was caused by errors made by the appellant's former counsel, not the appellant herself.

The court granted the extension of time on terms, noting that the delay did not deprive the respondent of the ability to respond, but denied leave to amend the certificate respecting evidence.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a financial statement in the context of an underlying motion to change access and child support.

The responding party opposed the extension, arguing the moving party should be barred from further participation due to his failure to provide financial disclosure or file tax returns for three years.

The court granted the extension to prevent prejudice to the children, but imposed conditions including costs and a strict deadline for a settlement conference.

The plaintiff brought a motion to disqualify Benjamin Dillon and his firm from acting for the defendant TD Home & Auto Insurance Company ("TD Insurance") in a tort action.

The plaintiff had previously provided confidential information to TD Insurance during an accident benefits claim, where TD Insurance was in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff.

The court applied the principles of conflict of interest, particularly from *MacDonald Estate v. Martin*, *Dervisholli v. Cervenak*, and *Ascani v. Ascani*.

It was held that despite internal firewalls within the insurance company, the same lawyer being privy to confidential information from both the accident benefits and tort claims created a disqualifying conflict of interest.

The motion to disqualify counsel was granted.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a successful motion for temporary spousal support and an unsuccessful motion for interim disbursements.

The court found the applicant to be the successful party, despite the respondent's offer to settle, as the respondent's core position on spousal support was rejected.

Costs were fixed at $3,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable forthwith by the respondent and treated as spousal support for enforcement.

Following a successful motion for temporary joint custody and shared parenting time, the applicant sought substantial indemnity for costs, fixed at $8,000.

The respondent proposed partial indemnity of $2,500, payable by deduction from any equalization payment.

The court, applying Rule 24, awarded partial indemnity costs of $2,500 to the applicant, payable forthwith by the respondent.

The applicant sought temporary spousal support and interim disbursements under the Family Law Act.

The parties, married for 14-15 years and separated for 6-7 years, had disparate incomes.

The court awarded the applicant $2,000 per month in temporary spousal support, less than the $4,000 sought, due to uncertainties regarding her income and earning capacity.

The motion for interim disbursements was dismissed as the matrimonial home was soon to be sold, providing the applicant with funds.

The applicant father and respondent mother both brought motions for temporary orders regarding parenting time, custody, and child support.

The father sought a specific parenting schedule and permission to take the children on vacation, while the mother sought sole custody and an adjustment to child support.

The court found that the mother was unreasonably restricting the father's access and acting on extraneous considerations.

The court declined to make a custody order, implemented the father's proposed parenting schedule, permitted the vacation travel, and ordered the father to pay a small monthly amount for section 7 expenses while dismissing the mother's request to vary base child support.

The respondent, having successfully stayed a custody application due to lack of jurisdiction and secured the child's return, sought costs.

The applicant opposed, citing inability to pay and challenging the Family Responsibility Office's enforcement jurisdiction.

The court denied FRO enforcement for custody-related costs but awarded $100,000 in costs to the respondent, citing the applicant's egregious conduct, bad faith, and unreasonableness, and the importance of the issues, while considering the applicant's ability to pay.

The appellant, William Mori, appealed convictions and sentences for income tax evasion and making false statements under the Income Tax Act.

The trial judge found Mori guilty of evading tax for three years, imposing consecutive four-month imprisonment terms and fines.

Mori argued errors in declining to exclude evidence obtained during a tax audit and in finding the requisite mens rea, and that the sentence was unfit.

The appeal court upheld the trial judge's findings on the audit's predominant purpose, concluding it was a civil audit until specific evidence of all invoices was received, and rejected Mori's "natural person" tax protestor theory as a valid defence to mens rea.

The court also found no errors in principle in the sentencing, affirming the 12-month imprisonment and fines, emphasizing general and specific deterrence against tax evasion, particularly in light of the growing "natural person" movement.

The applicant, who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, had his Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits suspended and later cancelled by the Director for failing to provide requested information.

The Social Benefits Tribunal rescinded both decisions, finding the Director failed to accommodate the applicant's disability.

When the Director failed to reinstate the benefits, the applicant sought an order of mandamus.

The Divisional Court granted declarations that the Director breached his public duty by failing to reinstate the benefits, but declined to issue mandamus for the payment of arrears, finding that retroactive payments were within the Director's discretion and that the applicant had an alternative remedy through a civil action.