James A. Ramsay

The offender was convicted of sexual interference after digitally penetrating and fondling the 12-year-old cousin of his girlfriend.

The court accepted a joint submission from counsel, sentencing the offender to nine months' imprisonment less credit for pre-sentence custody at a 1.5:1 ratio, along with ancillary orders.

The court noted the severe impact on the victim and expressed disagreement with a prior decision finding the current one-year mandatory minimum for the offence unconstitutional, though the older nine-month minimum applied in this case.

The applicant was previously successful in her application for dependant support from her late spouse's estate.

She sought costs from the respondent sister, who had contested the application and made unfounded allegations of misappropriation.

The respondent sought costs from the estate.

The court noted that while the litigation arose partly because the intestate failed to make adequate provision for his spouse, awarding costs from the estate would effectively penalize the successful applicant, who was awarded the entire residue.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $13,500.

The applicant, the common law spouse of the intestate for approximately two decades, applied for support from the estate under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The intestate died suddenly, leaving an estate of modest value and no other dependants.

The court found that the intestate had not made adequate provision for the applicant's proper support, considering her age, health, and accustomed standard of living.

Applying the moral duty framework, the court ordered the entire residue of the estate to be conveyed to the applicant.

The defendants brought a motion to strike 34 paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim for failing to comply with the rules of pleading.

The plaintiff's action alleged excessive force and unlawful arrest during a mental health apprehension.

The court found that the impugned paragraphs breached the rules of pleading by including irrelevant facts, pleading evidence, containing scandalous or argumentative statements, and making detailed legal arguments.

The motion was granted, the offending paragraphs were struck, and the plaintiff was granted leave to amend.

The parties lived together for 14 years.

The applicant sought spousal support and a constructive trust in the respondent's business and residence.

The respondent moved for partial summary judgment dismissing the business claim based on a release the applicant signed when her employment with the business was terminated.

The applicant moved for an advance of $50,000 for litigation expenses under Rule 24(12).

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding the release pertained to employment and credibility issues required a trial.

The court granted the applicant's motion for interim disbursements, ordering a $50,000 advance from funds held in trust to level the playing field and allow her to retain an accountant.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against the police for false arrest and excessive force.

She moved for summary judgment, an order striking the defence for failure to produce relevant material, and other relief.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that the evidence did not establish the absence of a genuine issue for trial, particularly given conflicting eyewitness accounts.

The court also dismissed the motion to strike the defence, finding no evidence that the defendant failed to disclose the 911 tapes or other relevant information.

The plaintiff credit union brought four actions for repayment of commercial loans against the defendants.

The defendants counterclaimed, alleging fraud and misconduct by a former employee of the plaintiff who negotiated the loans.

The plaintiff moved to strike the amended statements of defence and counterclaim.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendants' pleadings contained sweeping conclusory allegations devoid of supporting material facts, failing to meet the requirements of Rule 25.06.

The pleadings were struck with leave to amend.

The respondent sought costs of $15,000 following a motion where he was successful on the issues of partition and sale of the matrimonial home and child access, but unsuccessful on temporary spousal support and the quantum of child support.

The applicant argued that the parties should bear their own costs.

The court found that the respondent was successful on the most important issues and awarded him costs, discounted to $7,500 to reflect the mixed results.

The costs were ordered to be paid forthwith or deducted from the applicant's share of the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

Following a motion to vary child and spousal support where the applicant achieved mixed success, the respondent sought costs of up to $20,890.

The court noted that while the respondent made a reasonable offer to settle, she had previously resisted a reasonable request to terminate child support.

Given the divided success and the parties' conduct, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

Following a three-day trial where the applicant unsuccessfully opposed the approval of the respondent's accounts as attorney and executrix for their father's estate, both parties sought costs.

The court found no reason to order costs from the estate.

As the respondent was entirely successful, the court ordered the applicant to pay partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,000.

The applicant mother sought temporary orders for child support and a restrictive parenting schedule, while the respondent father sought increased parenting time, partition and sale of the matrimonial home, and spousal support.

The court expanded the father's parenting time to three days a week, finding the mother had unreasonably restricted his access despite his capability.

The court ordered the immediate partition and sale of the matrimonial home, finding no prejudice to the mother's equalization claims, and ordered her to pay $1,000 monthly in occupation rent.

The father was ordered to pay $21,600 in retroactive child support and $500 monthly in ongoing child support, with his spousal support claim dismissed.

The respondent moved to dismiss the applicant's application for a constructive trust over a shared property, arguing the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court lacked jurisdiction.

The court found the application was properly brought in the Superior Court of Justice and that the Family Law Rules applied because the parties' arrangement was made in anticipation of cohabitation.

The respondent's motion was dismissed, his separate civil proceeding was permanently stayed, and he was enjoined from entering the property.

The applicant moved to vary a 2012 order to terminate child and spousal support.

The court denied the applicant's request to amend pleadings at trial to seek earlier child support termination dates.

Child support was terminated on consent effective May 2016, and the respondent was ordered to pay $5,350 for her share of retroactive post-secondary education expenses.

The court dismissed the motion to terminate spousal support, finding that despite the respondent's conjugal relationship and increased income, her compensatory entitlement from the 20-year marriage had not yet been exhausted.

Following a successful motion to cite the responding corporation for contempt of court, the plaintiff sought full indemnity costs.

The court awarded costs of $9,171.05 on a full indemnity scale against the corporation due to its reprehensible actions in deliberately contravening court orders.

The court declined to order costs against an individual who was not involved in the motion.

The respondent mother brought a motion to change a 2010 child support order due to changes in the parties' incomes and the children's living arrangements.

The parties agreed to proceed based on written materials and agreed facts rather than a settlement conference.

The court recalculated ongoing and retroactive child support using the formula from the original order, accounting for two children moving to live full-time with the applicant father and updated incomes.

The respondent was ordered to pay ongoing child support of $110 per month and a fixed retroactive amount of $4,303.

The litigation involves a dispute over property owned by an unincorporated association following the expulsion of several members.

Motions were brought to declare the membership of the association and to dismiss the involvement of both the unincorporated and newly incorporated associations for lack of standing.

The court dismissed the motion for a declaration of membership, finding that factual disputes required a trial.

The court also dismissed the proceedings involving both associations, holding that the unincorporated association is not a legal entity capable of suing or being sued, and the corporate association has no interest in the litigation.

The plaintiff moved for a third time for leave to amend his statement of claim, seeking declarations regarding share ownership, civil fraud, and oppression, after his initial claim on a promissory note was found to be statute-barred.

The court denied the motion, finding that the proposed amendments effectively sought consequential relief and were therefore subject to the expired two-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the court held the motion was an abuse of process and res judicata, as a similar motion had been dismissed in 2013.

The plaintiff sued her insurer for bad faith, negligence, and fraud in the administration of her statutory accident benefits claim following a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant insurer brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the statement of claim, arguing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) had exclusive jurisdiction under section 280 of the Insurance Act.

The court agreed, finding that the essential character of the dispute concerned the denial of accident benefits, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the LAT regardless of how the claim is legally characterized.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

The defendant moved to set aside a $6 million default judgment entered against her.

The plaintiffs had sued the defendant and others for misconduct related to the purchase of life insurance policies.

The court found that while the defendant did not bring the motion promptly and lacked a good explanation for her default, she had an arguable defence on the merits regarding her personal liability as a corporate officer.

Balancing the factors, the court set aside the default judgment on terms, requiring the defendant to pay costs thrown away and the costs of the motion, and allowing the writ of execution to remain on title.

Following a two-day family law trial, the respondent sought costs of $9,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court noted that while the respondent was more successful on issues such as retroactive child support and the date of separation, the applicant also had some success and the respondent's handling of a joint line of credit made the trial inevitable.

Recognizing the applicant's decision to put the children first rather than pursue other financial strategies, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.