James D. Patterson

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking compliance with existing parenting orders after the applicant mother began withholding the children.

The court, operating under COVID-19 emergency protocols, assessed the motion's urgency.

It determined that the matter met the criteria for urgency, relating to the children's well-being and alleged wrongful retention, and allowed the motion to proceed, setting a schedule for materials and a hearing date.

This decision addresses costs for an original summary judgment motion after the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment against the defendant, Mr. Plate.

Mr. Plate sought substantial or partial indemnity costs, arguing the plaintiff's motion was unreasonable.

The plaintiff, Atlas Copco, sought to deny costs or have them "in the cause." The court found the plaintiff's summary judgment motion was reasonably brought and did not warrant substantial indemnity costs as a sanction under Rule 20.06(a).

While Mr. Plate was successful on appeal, the original motion significantly narrowed the issues for trial, benefiting both parties.

Considering the divided success and the plaintiff's status as a crime victim, the court ordered that costs of the summary judgment motion be "in the cause," to be determined by the trial judge.

The Applicant sought to increase spousal support from a 2010 divorce order, requesting $1327.00 per month for nine years, citing the termination of child support as a material change.

The Respondent sought to terminate spousal support entirely.

The court found the Applicant was still in need of support but noted a pattern of "under-performing" in her career efforts.

The court declined to increase support based on the Respondent's post-separation income increase, finding no direct link to the Applicant's contributions.

Spousal support was ordered to continue at the original amount of $375.00 per month for a further two years, after which it would terminate.

The appellant, a former General Manager and Vice President of the respondent's Construction and Mining Technique division, was convicted of fraud over $5,000 following a jury trial.

The sentencing judge found that the appellant's participation in a fraudulent scheme involving inflated invoices constituted a gross breach of fiduciary duty.

The respondent subsequently moved for summary judgment in its civil action for breach of fiduciary duty, seeking $20 million in damages.

The motion judge granted summary judgment relying solely on the sentencing judge's findings.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the motion judge erred in granting summary judgment based on findings made under s. 724(2)(b) of the Criminal Code that were not express or implied in the jury's verdict.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant, a former executive, for $20 million in damages arising from a fraudulent kickback scheme.

The defendant had previously been convicted of fraud in a criminal trial and sentenced to five years in prison.

The court applied the doctrine of abuse of process to rely on the factual findings of the criminal sentencing judge.

While the court dismissed the claims for civil conspiracy and civil fraud due to insufficient evidence of the defendant's active involvement in the broader scheme, it granted summary judgment for breach of fiduciary duty.

The court found the defendant's passive acquiescence and failure to stop the known fraud breached his fiduciary duties, making him liable for the full $20 million loss.

The plaintiff, 2Source Manufacturing Inc., sued the defendants for fraudulent misrepresentation, deceit, conspiracy, unlawful interference with economic relations, and breach of the Competition Act, alleging they were misled about the renewal of a Supply Agreement.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to stay the action, relying on a forum selection clause (FSC) in the Supply Agreement that mandated New York courts.

The court interpreted the FSC broadly to cover claims "in pith and substance contractual," even if framed in tort or statute.

It found 2Source's claims to be contractual in nature, arising from the performance, termination, or renewal of the Supply Agreement.

The court also found no "strong cause" to deny the stay, as 2Source failed to demonstrate fraud, inability of the New York court to hear the claim, or public policy frustration.

The motion for a stay of proceedings was granted.