James A. Ramsay

The applicant brought an urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home following separation due to the respondent's psychological abuse.

The court granted the applicant exclusive possession, ordering the respondent to vacate, primarily considering the best interests of the children involved.

The decision highlighted the unsuitability of the status quo for the children and the applicant's ability to maintain the home.

Costs were fixed at $750 and reserved to the trial judge.

The applicant executor sought court direction regarding a charitable gift to a respondent organization whose charitable status had been revoked.

Concurrently, the respondent organization moved for leave to be represented by a non-lawyer.

The court denied leave for non-lawyer representation, citing the proposed representative's past conduct and inability to advocate effectively, and ordered the organization to appoint a solicitor.

The court also allowed the executor to pay the disputed funds into court and added the Public Guardian and Trustee as a party with carriage of the application, recognizing its parens patriae role in charitable matters.

The applicant hockey team sought an interim injunction to adjourn an internal league appeal of a discipline ruling, arguing that an arbitration clause in a player's contract should govern the underlying dispute.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the commissioner's discipline decision concerned a breach of league rules, not the player's contract, and that the Arbitration Act did not apply to the league's disciplinary process.

The court also noted that the applicant should exhaust internal league remedies before seeking court intervention.

The defendant brought a motion under s.105 of the Courts of Justice Act for an order requiring the plaintiff to submit to a medical examination.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, citing significant delay by the defendant in seeking the examination, which would prejudice the plaintiff and delay the trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant's delay was inexcusable and that the prejudice to the plaintiff, who was 77 years old, and to the orderly administration of justice outweighed the defendant's right to a medical examination, especially given the availability of other medical evidence and the potential inadmissibility of a late expert report under Rule 53.03.

The respondent brought a motion to change a 2015 order that granted sole custody of the parties' child to the applicant with no access to the respondent.

The respondent sought supervised access, proposing supervision by Pathstone for three months, followed by Gordon Mooney.

The court found that it was not in the child's best interest to be exposed to the respondent at this time due to his ongoing and intractable heroin addiction, repeated relapses, and mental health issues.

The respondent's plan for supervised access was also deemed impractical and would cause significant hardship to the applicant.

The motion to change was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.

The appellant appealed convictions for driving with excessive blood alcohol, possession of marijuana, and possession of cocaine, arguing Charter breaches related to arbitrary detention, unreasonable search, and the right to counsel.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the seizure of marijuana lawful as an incident of arrest for stunt driving, the detention not arbitrary, and no breach of the right to be informed of reasons for detention.

While there was a five-minute delay in informing the appellant of his right to counsel, no evidence was obtained as a result.

The court also found that roadside questioning about alcohol consumption, even after the appellant requested counsel, was permissible under the Orbansky doctrine as part of the impaired driving screening process, thus no breach of the right to counsel occurred in that regard.

This endorsement addresses costs following a summary judgment motion where the defendant achieved partial success on minor claims but failed on the two main claims.

Both parties sought costs.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $15,000 in partial indemnity costs, reduced to reflect the defendant's minor successes.

The court found that it was not unreasonable for the defendant to have brought the summary judgment motion.

The applicant, widow of the deceased, sought directions under Rule 75.06 regarding the estate, including payment of a debt to TD Bank and issuance of a certificate of appointment as executor.

The respondents, children from the deceased's first marriage, objected to the appointment and resisted debt payment, arguing the debt was secured against the matrimonial home now solely owned by the applicant.

The court ordered the TD Bank debt paid from the estate, granted the certificate of appointment to the applicant, and awarded costs against the respondents for an abandoned motion and for unreasonably delaying debt payments, finding their objections lacked merit.

The applicant sought costs for a previous motion.

The court awarded the applicant $2,500, less than the $3,300 requested, noting the applicant's partial success and lack of serious settlement effort.

The respondent's position on access was deemed "ridiculous," making settlement unlikely.

The court declined to make the costs enforceable as child support, as the motion did not pertain to child support.

The defendant, Robert Mills, moved for partial summary judgment and leave to amend his statement of defence to plead the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs claimed for breach of contract and tort related to the purchase of residences and a common recreational complex.

The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on claims for breach of privacy, breach of contract regarding monthly fees for club access, and deficiencies in construction.

However, the court dismissed the defendant's request for summary judgment on claims related to the delay in building the clubhouse and misrepresentation about golf course proximity/view, finding these issues required a trial due to intertwined facts and the need to potentially pierce the corporate veil.

Leave to amend the statement of defence to plead limitation periods for breach of contract and golf course representations was also denied.

This motion determined priority between creditors following a judicial sale of a residential property.

Pollard Windows Inc., a construction lien claimant, sought priority over 1746878 Ontario Inc., an assignee of a mortgage.

The court found that the mortgage held by 1746878 Ontario Inc. was a fraudulent conveyance, part of a scheme by the controlling individual (Andrew Ferri) and related entities to defeat creditors.

The court rejected 1746878 Ontario Inc.'s claims of priority, finding that the alleged notice of sale was invalid, it failed to prove any actual advances under the mortgage, and the transaction bore numerous badges of fraud.

Pollard Windows Inc. was granted priority for its judgment and costs.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions and cross-motions in a family law dispute following a 2014 separation.

The court dismissed the Applicant's requests for an adjournment, a voice of the child report, a preservation order against the Respondent's assets, and further disclosure.

It also dismissed the Respondent's request for a further parenting assessment.

The court granted the Applicant's motion to increase temporary child support to $9,277 per month and temporary spousal support to $8,500 per month, based on the Respondent's averaged income of $750,000.

Retroactive support was left for trial.

A support deduction order was issued, and all other relief sought was dismissed.

The Respondent moved for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home to facilitate its sale, offering a $600,000 equalization advance and an increase in temporary spousal support.

The Applicant resisted, citing the children's best interests and difficulty finding alternative accommodation.

The court granted the Respondent's motion, finding that the delay was not due to the Respondent's disclosure issues, that moving was inevitable for the children, and that the Applicant would be able to find suitable housing with the provided funds and support.

The parties, separated since 2015, brought cross-motions for temporary orders concerning the residence and access of their two daughters.

The respondent sought police enforcement of access, an order compelling the applicant to retain a therapist, and make-up time.

The applicant sought a restraining order against the respondent, suspension of access, temporary custody, and permission to change the children's school.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion in its entirety, finding his requests unfounded and noting his failure to facilitate therapeutic intervention and potential parental alienation.

The respondent's motion was largely granted, affirming previous access orders and directing the applicant to comply with therapeutic requirements, encourage the children's relationship with their mother, and cease disparaging the respondent or involving his new partner in access exchanges.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving with excessive blood alcohol, arguing that his Charter rights under sections 9 and 10(b) were infringed due to a delay in being informed of his right to counsel in French.

The trial judge admitted the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the police acted in good faith and the breach had minimal impact on the appellant's rights.

The appeal court upheld the trial judge's decision, deferring to the trial judge's application of the R. v. Grant analysis.

The court found no error in the trial judge's assessment of police conduct or the impact of the delay on the appellant's ability to exercise his rights, noting that breath samples are considered non-intrusive.

The defendants unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment.

The plaintiff, Pachino Construction Co. Ltd., sought costs for that motion.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $40,000 to the plaintiff, finding the defendants' position unreasonable and their conduct reprehensible, particularly regarding false information provided by one defendant's wife.

The court ordered the costs to be paid within 30 days, regardless of the ultimate trial outcome.

This trial decision addresses disputes over the date of separation, equalization of net family property, and retroactive child support.

The court determined the separation date as May 1, 2013, rejecting the applicant's earlier claim due to inconsistent actions like marriage counselling and joint debt renewal.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $21,802 for equalization and $1,168 for retroactive child support, with RRSP withdrawals included in Line 150 income for support calculations.

The matrimonial home was ordered partitioned and sold, and joint custody of the remaining child was granted.

Claims for spousal support, rental income, and occupation rent were dismissed.

This decision addresses the applicant's request for costs following successful litigation where she re-established a separation agreement regime and the respondent unsuccessfully sought to vary child support and residence terms.

The applicant had previously offered to settle for the exact outcome achieved.

The court awarded the applicant costs, fixing them at $3,000, to be paid forthwith by the respondent and enforced as child support.

The plaintiff brought a motion to disqualify Benjamin Dillon and his firm from acting for the defendant TD Home & Auto Insurance Company ("TD Insurance") in a tort action.

The plaintiff had previously provided confidential information to TD Insurance during an accident benefits claim, where TD Insurance was in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff.

The court applied the principles of conflict of interest, particularly from *MacDonald Estate v. Martin*, *Dervisholli v. Cervenak*, and *Ascani v. Ascani*.

It was held that despite internal firewalls within the insurance company, the same lawyer being privy to confidential information from both the accident benefits and tort claims created a disqualifying conflict of interest.

The motion to disqualify counsel was granted.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a successful motion for temporary spousal support and an unsuccessful motion for interim disbursements.

The court found the applicant to be the successful party, despite the respondent's offer to settle, as the respondent's core position on spousal support was rejected.

Costs were fixed at $3,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable forthwith by the respondent and treated as spousal support for enforcement.