James A. Ramsay

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The self-represented plaintiff sought $2 million in damages against the WSIB for refusing to pay for an elbow brace and related grievances.

The court found the statement of claim to be prolix, incoherent, and disclosing no known cause of action.

Furthermore, the action duplicated an ongoing appeal from the plaintiff's provincial offences convictions for misleading the WSIB.

The action was dismissed with costs.

The respondent successfully moved to terminate child support after the child finished post-secondary education.

He subsequently sought costs of $5,856 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant opposed, arguing she needed to continue litigation to collect arrears, and proposed each party bear their own costs.

The court rejected the applicant's argument, noting arrears remain enforceable after ongoing support is terminated, and found she had unreasonably refused an offer to settle.

The court awarded the requested costs of $5,856 to the respondent, to be deducted from any remaining arrears.

The father brought a motion to change a child support order, seeking to terminate support retroactively to March 2012.

The child turned 18 in December 2011 and finished secondary school in March 2012.

Although the child later attended a college program, he funded it himself through grants and loans while working.

The court found the child no longer met the definition of a "child of the marriage" under the Divorce Act after March 31, 2012.

The motion was granted, child support was terminated retroactively to March 31, 2012, and the mother was ordered to repay any excess amounts paid by the father.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for assault and negligence against the police board and an officer, the defendants sought costs of approximately $65,000.

The plaintiff argued for $15,000.

The court noted the plaintiff's unreasonable settlement expectations and the defendants' sincere, though non-compliant, Rule 49 offer.

The court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants at $35,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff sued a police officer and the police services board for assault and negligence following a traffic stop and arrest.

The plaintiff, who was pulled over by an unmarked police car for speeding, claimed he did not realize the officer was police and alleged the arrest caused him physical soreness and severe PTSD.

The court dismissed the action, finding the officer had reasonable grounds to arrest the plaintiff for evading police and used minimal force.

The court also held that the plaintiff's alleged psychiatric injury was not foreseeable, as it stemmed from his peculiar personality structure rather than the defendants' actions.

Following a family law trial where the applicant obtained custody, child support, and equalization and the respondent’s claim for spousal support was denied, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought costs exceeding $40,000 while the self-represented respondent requested reimbursement for legal fees previously incurred with former counsel.

The court found the applicant was unequivocally successful and had achieved a result better than her offer to settle.

The respondent’s failure to provide prompt disclosure and litigation conduct through his guardian contributed to increased costs.

The court awarded costs to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis up to the offer to settle and substantial indemnity thereafter.

Following a family law trial in which the applicant was entirely successful, the court considered the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought $70,000 in costs relating to the trial and a prior settlement conference.

The court found that the respondent’s reluctant disclosure and shifting positions on equalization increased the costs of the proceeding.

The court determined that $45,000 represented a reasonable costs amount and ordered the respondent to pay that sum forthwith, with half enforceable as child or spousal support and subject to deduction from the respondent’s share of the matrimonial home proceeds.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim arising from a mortgage given as security for the assignment of another mortgage.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant made misrepresentations about encumbrances on the underlying property and that the agreement did not reflect what was promised.

The court held that the alleged subsequent encumbrances did not materially affect the plaintiffs’ priority or interest, and therefore could not constitute actionable misrepresentations.

The court also found that the handwritten agreement and related oral representations merged into the registered mortgage and that the involvement of independent counsel defeated any non est factum argument.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted summary judgment on the counterclaim.

Following a prior ruling determining vehicle ownership and insurance coverage arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident, the court addressed the costs consequences of that decision.

The court had previously found that both spouses were owners of the vehicle and that their respective insurers were each liable for $1,000,000 in coverage rather than sharing a single limit.

In this costs decision, the successful plaintiffs and certain insurers sought partial indemnity costs of the motion and related proceedings.

The court held that the unsuccessful defendants’ denial of coverage necessitated the involvement of multiple insurers and justified costs awards in favour of the successful parties.

Joint and several costs were ordered against the unsuccessful parties in specified all‑inclusive amounts.

The applicant mother moved for temporary sole custody of the parties' four children with alternate weekend access for the respondent father.

The father sought week-about shared custody.

The court found that the mother had unilaterally changed the children's routines to minimize contact with the father, and that alternate weekend access was not the true status quo.

The court ordered temporary joint custody with week-about residence to ensure the father's role was not marginalized.

Child support was varied to a set-off amount payable by the mother.

Following the breakdown of a long-term marriage, the court determined issues of custody, child support, equalization of net family property, and a claim for spousal support.

The applicant sought custody, child support, and equalization, while the respondent sought spousal support and contested access arrangements.

The court accepted the applicant’s uncontested evidence on net family property and ordered the respondent to transfer funds from his pension to equalize property.

Child support and extraordinary expenses were ordered based on the respondent’s disability income, and custody of the minor child was granted to the applicant with access left to the applicant’s discretion.

The respondent’s claim for spousal support was dismissed as he was not disadvantaged by the marriage or its breakdown.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment arising from a fatal motor vehicle collision, seeking declarations that two separated spouses were both owners of the vehicle under s.192 of the Highway Traffic Act and that their respective insurers each provided $1,000,000 in liability coverage.

The court held that indicia of ownership demonstrated that the driver was an owner of the vehicle despite the other spouse being the registered owner.

The court further held that consent between co‑owners was legally irrelevant where one owner operated the vehicle, making both owners liable.

Applying principles of equitable contribution and the Insurance Act, the court concluded that both owner policies were primary and each insurer was liable up to its policy limit, making $2,000,000 potentially available to satisfy the loss.

The plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment was granted and the co‑owner’s motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The applicant wife sought a divorce, sole custody, child and spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent husband sought joint custody, shared residence, and partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant, finding the respondent lacked the maturity to prioritize the children's needs.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $200,000 due to undisclosed cash income and personal expenses paid by his business, ordering table child support and $3,500 monthly in indefinite compensatory spousal support.

The court also ordered an equalization payment of $228,217 to the applicant and the partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The purchaser under a share purchase agreement brought an application seeking appointment of an arbitrator to determine a purchase price adjustment relating to working capital.

The vendors argued that the purchaser’s failure to deliver financial statements within a 40‑business‑day contractual deadline extinguished the right to arbitration and sought a stay pending a separate action alleging breach of contract and bad faith.

The court held that the agreement demonstrated a clear intention that disputes concerning price adjustment be resolved through arbitration and that the missed deadline did not terminate the contractual right to arbitrate.

The court also rejected arguments that allegations of bad faith, the involvement of escrow agents, or concerns about multiplicity of proceedings justified avoiding arbitration.

An arbitrator was appointed and the cross‑application was dismissed.

The appellant pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana and two counts of breach of recognizance.

The sentencing judge rejected a joint submission and imposed a sentence of six months' imprisonment in addition to 90 days of pre-trial custody.

The appellant appealed the sentence and applied for bail pending appeal.

The Superior Court of Justice denied the application, finding that while the appeal was not frivolous, the argument that the sentence was manifestly unfit was not strong given the appellant's extensive criminal record.

Bail pending appeal was denied and the appeal was expedited.

The defendants moved for costs of the action after the plaintiff's action was dismissed by the Registrar and the plaintiff's subsequent motion to set aside the dismissal was denied.

The plaintiff requested a further extension of time to make costs submissions, which the court denied as unreasonable and unduly delaying the matter.

The court awarded costs to the defendants fixed at $8,500 all-inclusive on a partial indemnity basis, noting the plaintiff should have accepted the defendants' earlier offer of a dismissal without costs.

The moving party (father) brought a motion for an order requiring the responding party (mother) to file necessary forms to commence immediate reconciliation counselling between the children and the father at Pathstone.

The Children's Lawyer supported immediate counselling.

The mother objected to paying her share and to the agency's process of communicating with lawyers.

The court granted the motion, finding the children needed immediate counselling and concluding the mother's objections were not serious and demonstrated she was deliberately stalling reconciliation for her own purposes.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2013 order, seeking to reduce child support arrears, terminate spousal support, impute income to the respondent mother, and reduce his own imputed income.

The court granted relief for a 10-month period when one child lived with the applicant, eliminating those months from his arrears.

However, the court refused to reduce the applicant's imputed income of $39,000 or terminate spousal support, noting the respondent's efforts to find employment and her entitlement to compensatory support.

Child support was set off under section 8 of the Child Support Guidelines, and the applicant was ordered to pay a proportionate share of extraordinary expenses.

The plaintiff's action for damages was dismissed after his vacant house burned down and his insurance claim was denied.

The court determined the costs payable to the successful defendants.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis at $15,000 for the broker and $5,000 for the insurer, noting the insurer had improperly continued to charge premiums and the broker had poor record-keeping.

The accused, the principal of a salvage yard, was charged with 43 counts of possession of stolen property and three counts of fraud after police discovered numerous stolen vehicles and parts at his business and associated properties.

The Crown alleged the accused was operating a chop shop and knowingly dealing in stolen goods, while the accused claimed he was unaware the items were stolen and blamed employees and associates.

The court rejected the accused's explanations, finding overwhelming circumstantial evidence that he was deliberately running a stolen car and parts operation.

The accused was found guilty on 39 counts of possession of stolen property and two counts of fraud.