James Robert Milne

The Applicant mother sought various relief including child and spousal support, equalization, and property division following the breakdown of her marriage.

The Respondent father contended that their marriage certificate constituted a domestic contract under foreign law, invalidating these claims.

The court rejected the father's argument due to insufficient proof of foreign law.

The court granted the mother's claims for retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, an equalization payment, and ordered the division of RESP funds and proceeds from the sale of family properties.

The parties separated after a 20-year marriage.

The trial resolved issues of equalization, income determination, child and spousal support, and post-separation adjustments.

The court preferred the applicant's expert's asset-based valuation of the family businesses over the respondent's earnings-based approach.

The court imputed income to the respondent due to tax-free earnings from day trading losses.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $345,325.02 and significant retroactive child support.

The court also found the respondent engaged in serious misconduct by improperly accessing the applicant's privileged emails.

The Plaintiff, Synergy IT Solutions Inc., brought a motion for a status hearing and a timetable to advance litigation, seeking an order to prevent dismissal for delay under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Defendant, UTC Fire & Security Canada Inc. (Chubb), opposed the motion, arguing that Synergy failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and that Chubb was prejudiced by the unavailability of key witnesses.

The court found that Synergy provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, largely due to COVID-19 related disruptions to its counsel's small law firm, and that Chubb did not demonstrate non-compensable prejudice, as the witnesses were unavailable even before the critical deadline.

The motion was granted, and a status hearing was ordered to set a timetable.

Costs were awarded to the Plaintiff.

This mid-trial ruling addresses the Respondent's violation of the rule in Browne v. Dunn by adducing evidence on substantive issues (equalization payment, income for support, unreported cash sales, business valuation, and child residency) without having put these points to the Applicant or her bookkeeper during cross-examination.

The court found a serious and voluminous breach of trial fairness.

As a remedy, the court ordered that the Applicant and her bookkeeper be recalled to address the new evidence, rather than excluding the Respondent's evidence, to ensure all relevant evidence is heard and credibility can be fairly assessed.

The Respondent was ordered to pay the costs associated with recalling the witnesses.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their motion to stay the action pending the disposition of a separate oppression application involving the respondent's shareholders.

The oppression application included orders prohibiting the respondent from settling the current action.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal and stayed the action, finding that the inability to settle the action severely undermined the respondent's authority to pursue it and prejudiced the appellants.

The court also found palpable and overriding errors in the motion judge's assessment of conflicting evidence regarding the respondent's corporate control.

The defendants were successful on a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court and sought costs of $8,421.09.

The plaintiff opposed the quantum, arguing the hourly rates and time spent were excessive, and challenging the disbursements.

The court found the fees reasonable but reduced the disbursements because they were undocumented.

Costs were fixed at $7,431.70 payable forthwith.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the proceeding, arguing that the plaintiff corporation lacked authority to continue the action due to ongoing litigation (the "Newmarket application") concerning its ownership and management.

They also contended that two court orders from the Newmarket application, which restrained settlement of the Barrie action, effectively constituted a stay.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, asserting its proper authority to proceed and arguing that the Newmarket orders only restricted settlement, not the progress of litigation.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the Newmarket orders did not stay the Barrie proceedings and that the plaintiff's sole director and majority shareholder possessed the requisite authority to retain and instruct counsel for the action.