James Melville Longstreet

The plaintiff alleged battery by the defendant, seeking $250,000 in damages for personal injuries.

The defendant denied the assault and counterclaimed for $200,000, alleging malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and assault.

The court found the defendant committed battery by forcefully taking a paper from the plaintiff, awarding nominal non-pecuniary damages of $750.00.

The plaintiff's claims for special and punitive damages were dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The defendant's counterclaims were also dismissed, as the torts were not established or lacked supporting evidence.

The respondent brought a motion for an order naming her the owner of a jointly owned embryo, seeking its implantation after an acrimonious divorce.

The applicant opposed, preferring donation.

The court held that the dispute was governed by valid contracts.

The Ontario contract stipulated that the patient's (respondent's) wishes were to be respected in the event of separation.

While a Georgia contract indicated court determination in divorce, the court prioritized the Ontario contract's specific provision.

The motion was granted, allowing the respondent to use the embryo, and the applicant was awarded reimbursement for his financial interest in half of the embryo.

Former business associates disputed financial obligations arising from a commercial lease, alleged tax arrears, a purported deposit toward a contemplated property purchase, and a counterclaim for vehicle repair work.

The court found the tenant was responsible for property taxes but concluded that a portion of the increased monthly payments was intended to cover ongoing tax obligations, leaving only a small balance outstanding.

The tenant failed to prove that the deposit exceeded the amount admitted by the landlord.

The counterclaim for historic vehicle repair work was dismissed on the merits despite the absence of a pleaded limitations defence.

After set‑off of the parties’ obligations, judgment was granted in favour of the defendant for the balance.

In a family law motion relating to property equalization, the moving party sought an order requiring the responding party to obtain a formal valuation of her shares in a limited partnership as of the valuation date.

The responding party asserted the shares had nominal value and relied on an email from a company officer and financial statements showing operational losses.

The court held that the party asserting the value of an asset bears the primary onus of establishing that value with credible evidence.

The evidence provided was insufficient to meet that burden, as there was no evidence of the qualifications of the person offering the opinion or the basis of the valuation.

The court ordered the responding party to obtain an independent formal valuation at her own expense.