James A. Ramsay

The accused applied to exclude intercepted communications between them from use in a search warrant information, wiretap authorization affidavit, and at trial, arguing the communications were protected by marital privilege under s.4(3) of the Canada Evidence Act.

The court held that marital communications privilege is testimonial in nature and does not prevent the interception of communications or their use in investigative affidavits, though they generally cannot be compelled in court testimony without the recipient spouse’s consent.

The accused further argued that limiting the privilege to legally married spouses violated s.15 of the Charter by excluding common-law partners.

The court found the accused had not established that their relationship was analogous to marriage and therefore they could not benefit from the privilege in any event.

The application to excise the communications was dismissed and the intercepted communications were held admissible.

The responding spouse brought a motion to vary long-standing support orders made following divorce.

The court considered whether the spousal support order, which was based on an "expected" income and set for a fixed duration, could be varied due to subsequent fluctuations in the payor’s income.

It held that the parties had intentionally fixed the spousal support amount for a defined period despite known income volatility, and variation was not warranted.

Child support, however, was reconsidered.

The court terminated child support when the child ceased to be a child of the marriage and later ordered support during post-secondary studies based on an imputed income.

The child protection agency sought a temporary order under s. 51 of the Child and Family Services Act continuing a previous without‑prejudice order placing three children primarily in the mother’s care with supervision and access arrangements involving the father.

The court reviewed evidence of family conflict, the son’s aggressive behaviour, and parental challenges including mental health concerns and emotional volatility.

Applying the statutory principles of best interests of the child, preservation of family integrity, and the least disruptive course of action, the court determined different interim arrangements for each child.

The son and older daughter were placed with the mother subject to supervision and access to the father, while the youngest daughter was ordered to reside with both parents on an alternating schedule under supervision.

The Family Law Act custody motion was stayed pending the child protection proceeding.

Competing applications were brought under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 for guardianship of the person and property of an incapable adult with cerebral palsy and significant cognitive impairment.

The niece sought appointment as guardian while the incapable person’s sister filed a competing application.

Although both parties had historically assisted with the incapable person’s care and finances, the court found the relationship between the parties had irreparably broken down.

Evidence showed the respondent’s husband had engaged in sexual contact with the incapable person and the respondent attempted to conceal the incident.

The court held that this circumstance made the respondent unsuitable as guardian and that the applicant represented the reasonable alternative in the incapable person’s best interests.

In a dispute arising from a failed real estate transaction for the purchase and development of condominium property, the plaintiff sought leave to amend its statement of claim to increase damages and to consolidate its action with a mirror action commenced by the defendant.

The defendant opposed and brought a motion to compel examinations of the plaintiff’s non-party lawyers, arguing solicitor-client privilege had been waived.

The court granted leave to amend and ordered consolidation of the mirror actions, finding no prejudice and that procedural efficiency favoured a single proceeding.

The motion to examine the lawyers was dismissed because reasonable efforts had not been made to obtain the information through other means and the proposed examination sought legal opinions rather than factual evidence.

The court further held that the pleadings did not place solicitor-client advice in issue or amount to waiver of privilege.

A father brought a motion seeking suspension of child support due to temporary unemployment after his employment insurance benefits expired.

The mother sought an order requiring the sharing of extraordinary expenses for the child while receiving public assistance.

The court accepted the father's evidence that he had no income and was actively seeking employment, and temporarily suspended child support for a defined period.

The court declined to order contribution toward extraordinary expenses due to lack of specificity and the family’s limited financial means.

Child support was ordered to resume at the guideline amount based on an imputed income once the suspension period ended.

Two accused charged with first degree murder applied for judicial interim release under s. 522 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on extensive circumstantial evidence, including surveillance footage, eyewitness accounts of the shooting, cell phone records, and DNA evidence linking the accused’s vehicle to the victim.

The court found the Crown’s case to be overwhelming and concluded there was a high probability of conviction.

The proposed sureties, largely family members, were found inadequate to provide meaningful supervision or ensure compliance with bail conditions.

Detention was ordered on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, including concerns about flight risk, potential interference with the administration of justice, and maintaining public confidence in the justice system.

The applicant brought an application under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 seeking, among other relief, appointment as guardian of property for an incapable person.

The matter was adjourned at the request of the respondent, and the court determined the appropriate terms of the adjournment.

Finding that the proceeding had been unduly delayed by the respondent, the court imposed conditions to protect the incapable person and the integrity of the process, including limited cross‑examinations, disclosure of documents relating to alleged abuse, production of a statement of assets, and completion of outstanding undertakings.

Costs of the attendance were fixed and reserved to the application judge.

Following a jury trial in a negligence action arising from a rear-end collision with a motorcycle, the plaintiff obtained a damages award of $248,000.

The plaintiff subsequently sought costs including augmented costs under the Insurance Act due to the defendant insurer’s failure to make reasonable settlement efforts and to meaningfully participate in mediation.

The court found the insurer’s participation in mediation was a sham and concluded that it failed to comply with its statutory obligations under ss. 258.5 and 258.6 of the Insurance Act.

As a result, the court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the plaintiff’s settlement offer date and substantial indemnity thereafter, and augmented the costs due to the refusal to mediate.

The total costs award was $217,000 plus HST, in addition to pre-judgment interest.

The appellants appealed a decision quashing a property assessment against the respondent for advertising displays at Pearson International Airport.

The lower court had found that the respondent was not an occupant and that the assessment was arbitrary and discriminatory.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent was an occupant under the Assessment Act as it had actual occupation, exclusive possession, value, and permanence.

The court also held that the doctrine of paramount occupancy did not apply, or alternatively, that the respondent was the paramount occupier.

Finally, the court found no evidence that the assessment corporation acted arbitrarily or discriminatorily.

Following a successful motion dismissing the action for failure to deposit security for costs and pay outstanding costs orders, the defendant sought costs of the action.

The court found that the self‑represented plaintiff repeatedly abused and maligned defence counsel and ignored prior court warnings regarding unfounded allegations.

The misconduct was characterized as wilful and harmful to the integrity of the court and its officers.

The court held that punitive costs on a substantial indemnity basis were necessary.

Costs were fixed at $25,000 and the action was dismissed with costs payable forthwith.

Following dismissal of a civil action for battery and negligence against healthcare providers and security personnel, the successful defendants sought costs.

The defendants had previously offered to consent to dismissal of the action without costs prior to trial.

The court held that, as the defendants were completely successful, they were entitled to recover their costs.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis and fixed in a lump sum.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award upholding the respondent hospital's method for calculating Early Retirement Allowances and Voluntary Exit options for part-time employees.

The union argued the hospital's approach, which prorated both years of service and salary, produced absurd results and penalized part-time employees compared to full-time employees.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and within the range of acceptable outcomes, as the arbitrator was not required to assume part-time employees must be treated identically to full-time employees under a different agreement.

The appellant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order dismissing its appeal for delay.

The underlying case involved a Small Claims Court award for wrongful dismissal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding it was brought out of time without a motion to extend, lacked evidentiary support explaining the delay, and showed no apparent merit to the appeal.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the calculation of an employee's long-term disability benefits under a collective agreement.

The hospital argued that the employee's benefits should be reduced by the amount of a disability pension she could have received had she terminated her employment.

The arbitrator found that the pension was not 'available' because electing it would require the employee to terminate her employment and forfeit significant health care benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and entitled to deference.

Following a previous costs endorsement, the court considered the written costs submissions of the corporate intervener, which had been inadvertently overlooked.

The court fixed the corporate intervener's costs at $6,000 and ordered the responding party (applicant in the main proceeding) to pay them.

Following the quashing of an application for judicial review on the basis that it was an abuse of process, the successful respondents and interveners sought costs.

The court awarded costs to the respondents, noting the awards should reflect the finding of abuse of process.

The court also awarded partial indemnity costs to the individual interveners, who had been added as parties with a direct interest in the proceedings.

Total costs of $30,350 were ordered against the applicant.

A hospital patient sued a hospital and its security guards for battery after being restrained in the emergency department while a physician issued a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act.

The patient argued the restraint was unlawful and caused a rotator cuff injury.

The court found the restraint caused the injury but concluded the conduct was legally justified under s. 15 of the Mental Health Act because the physician had reasonable grounds to believe the patient’s infection impaired her judgment and placed her at risk of serious bodily harm.

The force used by security was minimal and proportionate to preventing the patient from leaving before urgent surgery.

Because the restraint was authorized by statute, the elements of battery were not established.

Following a successful breach of contract action and defence of a counterclaim, the successful plaintiffs sought costs.

The court considered the outcome of the litigation, the length of the trial, the issues involved, and the amounts at stake.

Finding the plaintiffs entirely successful, the court held that they were entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court determined that $20,000 represented a reasonable amount that would have been contemplated for the proceeding.

The defendants were ordered to pay that amount.

The plaintiffs sued for breach of contract arising from the sale of a dry cleaning business, alleging the defendants failed to pay the full purchase price.

Although the written agreement stated a purchase price of $300,000, the court accepted evidence of an oral agreement establishing a true purchase price of $360,000.

After crediting payments already made, the court found that $49,000 of the purchase price remained unpaid along with additional contractual payments for continued use of the business name.

The defendants’ counterclaim for negligent misrepresentation regarding the condition of a boiler was dismissed, as the written agreement contained no warranties as to condition and the defendants had the opportunity to inspect the equipment.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiffs for $49,240.66 plus pre‑judgment interest.