James W. Sloan

The applicant purchased a contaminated property from the respondent.

The agreement of purchase and sale required the respondent to remediate the property to specific Ministry of Environment standards using in situ injections.

After several unsuccessful injection attempts, the respondent's experts proposed a Site Specific Risk Assessment (SSRA) instead of further injections or excavation.

The applicant sought specific performance of the remediation or funds to complete it, while the respondent sought a declaration that an SSRA satisfied its obligations.

The court found insufficient evidence regarding current contamination levels, the feasibility of excavation, and the impact of an SSRA on property value, and ordered the parties to obtain further expert evidence using trust funds before making a final determination.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking relief regarding custody and access that had already been dealt with on a final basis.

The court noted the respondent's history of failing to cooperate with court orders, including refusing to participate in a family assessment and failing to pay previously ordered costs.

The court dismissed the motion as procedurally improper, noting that any attempt to change the final orders would require a formal motion to change, and ordered costs against the respondent.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to determine the amount owing by the defendant on a mortgage.

The court found that the stated interest rate of 0.8% was a typo and the agreed rate was 8%.

The court disallowed the plaintiffs' claims for a lender's fee, an automatic renewal fee, and administrative fees, finding the renewal fee to be a penalty and the others unsupported by evidence.

The court also found the plaintiffs had received a payment of $86,184.68, contrary to their assertions.

The defendant was ordered to pay the remaining balance of $11,826.98, and the plaintiffs were denied their pre-litigation legal fees.

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the nine-year-old child of the marriage from Simcoe to Exeter, Ontario, to live with her fiancé and be closer to her extended family.

The child has type 1 diabetes and struggles with reading and writing.

The parties had been sharing parenting on a week-about basis.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework and found that the proposed move would require excessive driving, disrupting the child's life and the existing shared parenting arrangement.

The court concluded that the move was primarily for the mother's benefit and not in the child's best interests, dismissing the application.

Following a summary judgment motion where success was divided, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The parties had previously agreed to cap costs at $20,000 for the successful party.

Finding that the responding party was more successful based on the issues proceeding to trial, the court ordered the moving party to pay costs fixed at $10,000.

The Crown brought an application to admit evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct from 2008, involving domestic assault and unauthorized possession of a firearm, as similar fact evidence in a trial for similar charges.

The Crown argued the evidence was necessary to rebut the defence's assertion that the complainant planted the firearms.

The court applied the Handy framework and dismissed the application, finding the prior incident lacked sufficient similarity to the current charges and that its admission would be highly prejudicial.

The moving party, in the midst of complex family trust litigation, sought leave to withdraw admissions made in a previous affidavit and to file three new affidavits.

The moving party argued the admissions regarding multi-million dollar shareholder loans were made inadvertently due to confusion and reliance on her former, now-deceased counsel.

The responding parties opposed, arguing the admissions were formal and the new evidence was an attempt to repair her case mid-hearing.

The court granted the motion, finding the admissions were likely inadvertent, raised a triable issue, and caused no non-compensable legal prejudice to the responding parties.

The court emphasized the need to decide the case on its true merits rather than a solicitor's or party's mistake.

Following a three-week jury trial in a personal injury action, the plaintiff was awarded $241,740 in damages.

Prior to trial, the defendants had served an offer to settle for $375,000 plus costs.

Because the jury award was less favourable than the defendants' offer, the defendants sought costs from the date of the offer pursuant to Rule 49.10.

The plaintiff argued that her impecuniosity should relieve her from paying the defendants' costs, as it would effectively offset her damages award.

The court rejected this argument, finding no reason to deviate from the normal costs rules.

The plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer, and the defendants were awarded partial indemnity costs thereafter.

The appellant mother appealed a trial decision making two of her children Crown wards without access and granting custody of her third child, who has Down syndrome, to the biological father without access to the mother.

The mother argued the trial judge erred in assessing evidence, including child hearsay and medical evidence, and in denying her access.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, credibility findings, or determination that access was not in the children's best interests given the mother's history of physical discipline, lack of insight, and failure to address the children's needs.

The applicants brought a motion to remove Cambridge LLP as solicitors of record for Sheila O’Donovan and to add Adam Cappelli as a party respondent.

The court applied a nine-factor test to assess the solicitor removal request, considering the likelihood of Mr. Cappelli being a witness and potential conflicts.

The court found no real conflict and upheld the client's right to choose counsel.

The motion to add Mr. Cappelli as a respondent was dismissed due to the advanced stage of the proceedings and delay by the applicants, though without prejudice to a future application for passing accounts.

The applicant sought to exclude statements made to police, arguing they were involuntary and obtained in breach of Charter rights due to a failure to advise of the right to remain silent and to counsel.

The court found that while the rights were read, the police failed to maintain an adequate contemporaneous record of the accused's utterances regarding the marijuana plants and the offer to show the light switch.

This failure raised a reasonable doubt as to the voluntariness of the statements, leading to their exclusion.

This endorsement addresses two applications concerning the estate of Frank Ernest Warren: one by the estate trustees to pass their accounts, and a cross-application by beneficiary Cheryl Bolton alleging breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duties, and seeking the removal of the trustees and reimbursement for improperly converted monies and excessive legal fees.

The estate, valued at approximately $316,000, included a "Henson-like" trust for Ms. Bolton, who receives ODSP.

The court found that the trustees, who resided in Scotland, unduly burdened the estate.

The court disallowed the trustees' compensation, significantly reduced the legal fees charged by their counsel (finding 70% of clerk time was for trustee work and disallowing certain legal research), and ordered the removal of the estate trustees.

Reimbursement for the trustees' flights, hotel, and meal expenses was approved.

The court was particularly troubled by the trustees' proposal to collapse the Henson trust, which would have been detrimental to the beneficiary and contrary to the testator's wishes.

This case involved a protracted neighbourhood dispute between two families, the Roberts (plaintiffs) and the Assis/Buitendyks (defendants), concerning issues such as tree removal, alleged trespasses, surveillance cameras, bright lights, loud music, and verbal altercations.

The plaintiffs sought damages for trespass, invasion of privacy, nuisance, and abuse of process related to a peace bond application.

The court found that the plaintiffs' claims for tree removal and most alleged trespasses were not substantiated or were petty.

Claims for invasion of privacy due to surveillance cameras were dismissed as police found no concerns and no credible audio surveillance evidence existed.

Nuisance claims regarding lights, music, and hockey pucks were dismissed due to lack of communication from plaintiffs and insufficient severity.

The abuse of process claim regarding the peace bond was also dismissed, as the defendants genuinely felt threatened and followed a legal process.

The court emphasized the immaturity of both parties and the failure to pursue mediation.

All plaintiffs' claims were dismissed.

The plaintiff, a 62-year-old senior family law clerk with 27 years of service, brought a motion for summary judgment claiming wrongful dismissal.

The defendant law firm argued that the plaintiff had voluntarily resigned after a meeting regarding workplace restructuring, during which she became upset, handed in her security pass, and left the office.

The court found that the plaintiff's actions did not constitute a clear and unequivocal resignation when viewed contextually, noting her long tenure, emotional state, and the employer's failure to make further inquiries.

The court granted summary judgment on liability, finding the plaintiff did not resign, and ordered a trial of an issue for the quantum of damages.

Following a motion regarding the appointment of an estate trustee during litigation and the production of records, the court issued a costs endorsement.

The court noted that both parties took inflexible positions and failed to make offers to settle.

Because success on the motion was divided, the court declined to order costs to either party and encouraged future negotiation and mediation.

The moving party, an appliance supplier, sought leave to register a certificate of pending litigation against a condominium unit owned by the responding parties.

The moving party alleged it was owed $155,000 for appliances supplied to a previous project and had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for the unit as security for the debt.

The responding parties argued the agreement prohibited the registration of a certificate of pending litigation.

The court granted the motion, finding that the potential harm to the moving party outweighed the harm to the responding parties, the responding parties' corporations were likely to become shell companies, and the responding parties were estopped from relying on the non-registration clause due to their own default.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a previous order regarding the residency schedule of the parties' child.

The father raised concerns about the mother's living conditions, including bedbugs, garbage, an impending eviction, and the mother's work schedule requiring various caregivers.

The court found it was in the best interests of the child to spend more time at the father's stable residence and ordered that the child reside primarily with the father, with the mother having alternate weekend and mid-week access.

The respondent father sought costs after successfully moving to rescind an ex parte order and obtaining non-supervised access to the children.

The applicant mother had obtained the initial order based on an affidavit that contained non-disclosure and mis-disclosure, which she later admitted during questioning.

Despite these admissions, the mother maintained an intransigent position, forcing the father to incur significant legal fees.

The court found the mother's conduct unreasonable and ordered her to pay $20,000 in all-inclusive costs to the father.

The applicant mother initially obtained an ex parte order granting her sole custody, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and a restraining order against the respondent father.

The court vacated the ex parte order after finding the applicant failed to disclose material facts, including her own recent initiation of intimacy and her admission that she sought supervised access merely because the respondent changed his work schedule.

On the interim motion, the court denied the applicant's request for a restraining order and supervised access, finding the status quo was shared parenting.

The court ordered an alternating 2-2-3 residential schedule.

The court determined costs following a motion where the respondent was substantially more successful than the applicant.

The applicant's monetary claims and request for the respondent to pass accounts were dismissed, as the applicant had no interest in the estate.

The court fixed costs at $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable by the applicant to the respondent.