James W. Sloan

The applicant mother brought a motion for ongoing child support, child support arrears, and section 7 expenses for the parties' five children.

The court ordered ongoing child support based on the respondent father's income and calculated arrears using DivorceMate software.

Regarding section 7 expenses, the court significantly reduced the applicant's claim because she failed to seek the respondent's consent before incurring most of the expenses, limiting his contribution to specific medical and tutoring costs.

The total arrears were ordered to be paid in monthly installments over five years.

This application involved the interpretation of several clauses (3(b), 3(h), and 3(j)) of a deceased husband's will.

The court was asked to clarify the scope of a spousal residence clause, the wife's entitlement to net income from sale proceeds, the definition of "net income" the extent of the wife's discretion to use income and encroach on capital, the requirement to consider her personal means, and the apportionment of accounting expenses.

Applying the "armchair rule" the court found that the residence clause extended to a property not physically occupied by the husband due to medical reasons, affirmed the wife's entitlement to net income, defined "net income" to include deductions for taxes and annual estate/trust expenses, and clarified that the wife's discretion to encroach on capital was limited to maintaining her accustomed lifestyle, requiring consideration of her personal means.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking extensive documentary discovery from the defendants in a consolidated construction lien action.

The defendants resisted, arguing proportionality and the summary nature of construction lien proceedings, claiming only a small amount was in dispute.

The court found that the defendants' pleadings, which raised issues of delay, extras, incomplete work, and lost profits, put virtually all requested documents in issue.

The court determined that proceeding to discovery without the requested documentation would be unfair, lead to protracted discoveries, and ultimately incur more expenses.

The motion for documentary production was largely granted, with minor exceptions and clarifications.

The defendant banquet hall brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim against it.

The plaintiff suffered a traumatic brain injury in a motor vehicle accident caused by an intoxicated driver who had just left a Christmas party hosted at the defendant's premises.

The defendant argued it had no reason to intervene as the driver showed no visible signs of intoxication and it had standard alcohol service protocols in place.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a jury could conclude the defendant breached its duty of care by failing to properly monitor alcohol consumption and track patrons leaving the premises.

The Radford defendants brought a motion to set aside a noting of pleadings closed, with the plaintiffs bringing a cross-motion for default judgment, stemming from a real estate transaction involving soil contamination and an undertaking.

The court granted the defendants' motion, finding they had a credible intent to defend the action for amounts exceeding a $13,000 holdback, based on a reasonable, albeit mistaken, belief about their liability cap.

The court applied the Turner's Garage v. Shell test, emphasizing the full context and factual matrix, and found arguable defenses and no significant prejudice to the plaintiffs.

This is an application by the Crown under sections 486.1(1), 486.2(1), and 715.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada regarding the admissibility of a videotaped statement of the complainant in an alleged sexual assault case.

The primary issue was whether the videotaped statement, made approximately 3 years and 5.5 months after the alleged incident, was recorded within "a reasonable time" as required by section 715.1.

The court considered the objectives of section 715.1, reasons for delay, and the impact on the complainant's recollection, distinguishing the facts from other cited cases.

The court found the delay reasonable given the complainant's age at the time of the assault (12) and the common reluctance of sexual assault victims to report incidents, allowing the Crown's application.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a prior proceeding.

The court reviewed submissions and applied Rule 57.01, concluding that costs should be assessed on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs' argument to reduce the defendant's costs due to a lack of a formal offer to settle was rejected, as the defendant had not yet received full document production (subject emails) at the time a settlement offer might have been made.

The court drew a negative inference from the plaintiffs' failure to produce their own bill of costs.

The defendant 2075750 Ontario Inc. was awarded partial indemnity costs for pleadings and productions, and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, totaling $135,221.65.

The defendant 2075750 Ontario Inc. brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for specific performance or damages arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The motion was based on the plaintiffs' repeated and intentional breaches of production obligations, delay tactics, and the resulting demonstrable prejudice to the defendant, including lost documents and faded memories.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing that the delay was not inordinate, that 2075750 Ontario Inc. also caused delay, and that no actual prejudice was shown.

The court found that the plaintiffs deliberately and wholly ignored the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding document production, intentionally withheld critical evidence, and engaged in a pattern of delay, causing actual prejudice to the defendant's ability to have a fair trial.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' action in its entirety with costs and ordered the deletion of instruments from the property title.

The Grand River Hospital brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiff's medical malpractice claim against it.

The plaintiff, self-represented, relied on an American orthopedic surgeon's expert report.

The court found the plaintiff's expert was not qualified to opine on Canadian hospital procedures or nursing/physiotherapy standards, and his report primarily attributed negligence to the doctors, not the hospital.

The expert failed to establish a causal link between alleged hospital failures and the plaintiff's injuries.

The plaintiff's complaints regarding customer service or minor issues without resulting harm were deemed insufficient to raise a triable issue of medical malpractice against the hospital.

The motion was granted, and the action against Grand River Hospital was dismissed with costs, while the action against the doctors continued.

This decision concerns the costs award following a successful summary judgment motion where the defendants, Schembri et al., had a $30,500,000 claim against them struck in its entirety.

Schembri sought $499,933.06 in costs.

The plaintiffs, Way et al., opposed the quantum, arguing for a reduction.

The court found Schembri's costs reasonable, noting the complexity of the intertwined actions and the plaintiffs' extensive, unfocused responding material.

The court also drew an adverse inference from the plaintiffs' failure to provide their own cost outline.

The full amount of costs requested by Schembri was awarded.

This case involved an application by Milijana Cvetkovic claiming 100% beneficial ownership of two properties, 192 and 194 Wentworth Avenue, Kitchener, despite Patrick Perrier being registered as a 50% co-owner.

Cvetkovic argued Perrier held his interest in trust for her, asserting a gratuitous transfer.

Perrier contended he was a 50% beneficial owner, having provided consideration by co-signing the mortgage and making payments.

The court dismissed Cvetkovic's application, finding that the transfer was not gratuitous, as both parties jointly borrowed funds, paid the sister's interest, and received the transferred title.

Perrier was granted leave to proceed with the partition and sale of the property.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a successful motion brought by Lexfund Inc. The court fixed Lexfund's partial indemnity costs, payable by the Ferro defendants, in the amount of $22,477.94, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

No other costs orders were made.

This action concerned a boundary dispute where the plaintiff claimed ownership of an 8-foot strip of land by adverse possession.

The properties were converted to the land titles system on June 16, 2003, requiring the plaintiff to prove 10 years of adverse possession by her predecessors in title prior to that date.

The court found insufficient evidence of open, notorious, constant, continuous, peaceful, and exclusive possession by the plaintiff's predecessors.

Crucially, the existence of a wooden fence built by a predecessor on the surveyed lot line, rather than the informal 'paddock fence' relied upon by the plaintiff, indicated knowledge of the true boundary.

The plaintiff's claim for adverse possession was dismissed with costs.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for breach of a non-competition clause in a shareholders agreement and breach of fiduciary duty.

The parties, former joint venturers in real estate development, had a falling out.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants breached the agreement by pursuing other developments without presenting them first.

The court found the non-competition clause was ambiguous, constituted an unenforceable agreement to agree, and lacked a reasonable time limit.

The court also rejected the plaintiffs' unpleaded argument regarding breach of statutory fiduciary duties under the Business Corporations Act.

The plaintiffs' action was dismissed in its entirety.

Lexfund Inc. brought a motion seeking to extend a timetable for several actions, extend time to elect to proceed with counterclaims, and to proceed against the estate of Lucio Anthony Ferro.

These actions, primarily debt collection for litigation funding loans, had been administratively dismissed for delay.

The court considered Lexfund's explanations for delay, the lack of prejudice to the defendants regarding the principal debt, and the principles of justice and proportionality.

While acknowledging Lexfund's counsel's "sloppy practice" the court found no deliberate intention to abandon the files and that the litigation should proceed on its merits.

The court granted the extensions and permission to proceed against the estate, but imposed conditions to mitigate prejudice to the individual defendants regarding interest, setting a simple interest rate of 5% per annum and limiting the period for which interest could be charged.

The court addressed a costs decision where the respondent failed to comply with court orders regarding the payment of costs and the production of financial documents, thereby disadvantaging the applicant and hindering settlement discussions.

The judge found the respondent's excuses for non-compliance to be "ludicrous." Despite neither party outperforming their offers to settle, the court awarded the applicant costs totaling $15,828.75, including HST and disbursements, due to the respondent's conduct.

The applicant sought spousal support, child support, arrears, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent's request for an adjournment was denied due to a history of delay and non-compliance with court orders.

The court imputed an income of $40,000 per year to the respondent due to his lack of financial disclosure and implausible claimed income.

Orders were made for ongoing child support, retroactive child support, section 7 expenses for post-secondary education, and an equalization payment of $11,850.96 to the applicant from the proceeds of the matrimonial home.

Spousal support was set at $1.00 per month until the child graduates, then increasing to $1,283 per month.

The parties resolved their dispute without a trial.

The respondent requested costs on a partial indemnity scale, while the applicant opposed any costs order, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction for costs in a negotiated settlement.

The applicant also submitted her own costs if the court decided to address the issue.

Citing the difficulty in determining success or inappropriate behaviour without an adjudication on the merits, the court declined to make any order with respect to costs.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence under sections 8 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging warrantless seizure of financial and customer information from various entities (UPS, GTA Financial, Buduchnist Credit Union, Cash House, Money Market) during a fraud investigation.

The court found that while there was an expectation of privacy in financial affairs, the applicant had left a "public trail of breadcrumbs." Minor Charter breaches were identified regarding the warrantless acquisition of specific banking account information.

However, the court dismissed the application, concluding that the breaches were minor, the officer acted in good faith, and the evidence should be admitted under a s. 24(2) analysis to serve the truth-finding function of the trial, especially given the serious nature of the alleged fraud.

The moving party (respondent in the main action) brought a pre-trial motion seeking an order that his valuation experts not be disqualified due to a perceived conflict of interest raised by the responding party.

The responding party argued the motion judge lacked jurisdiction to bind the trial judge's discretion on admitting expert evidence.

The court agreed, finding that the trial judge acts as the gatekeeper for admitting evidence and a pre-trial ruling could leave the trial judge in an untenable position if cross-examination revealed a conflict.

The motion was dismissed.