James W. Sloan

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 plaintiffs sought costs on a full, substantial, or partial indemnity basis following a motion to compel the defendants to comply with undertakings.

The defendants argued the motion was brought to delay discovery.

The court noted the defendants had the power to expedite discovery by complying with undertakings and court orders, which they failed to do.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $94,468.81.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' pleadings or, in the alternative, to compel answers to undertakings and for security for costs.

The action involved a $90 million real estate development dispute.

The court found that the individual defendant had repeatedly failed to answer hundreds of undertakings from his discovery and had breached multiple court orders, causing significant delay.

Although the plaintiffs withdrew their request to strike the pleadings, the court ordered the defendant to pay $100,000 into court as security for costs to enforce its processes against a wealthy party who abused the court system.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim custody, child support, and spousal support, while the respondent father sought equal joint custody and timesharing.

The parties separated but remained in the matrimonial home until the mother moved out.

The court found the current access schedule unduly restrictive for the father and ordered interim interim parenting time for the father on alternate weekends and one overnight per week, along with child support based on imputed incomes.

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 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.

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 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 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 appellant car dealership appealed a Small Claims Court decision granting the respondent rescission of a motor vehicle purchase agreement and return of her $7,964 payment.

The trial judge found the transaction was a consumer purchase under the Consumer Protection Act and that the dealership engaged in an unfair practice by failing to provide a bill of sale and complete financing details.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the dealership's unfulfilled promise to provide a legally compliant bill of sale constituted a false, misleading, or deceptive representation under section 14 of the Act, entitling the buyer to rescission.

Following a trial where the respondent was totally successful, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant argued that no costs should be awarded due to his impecuniosity and the respondent's access to benefits through her First Nations status.

The court rejected this argument, noting that the respondent is the sole support for their children because the applicant is unable to work.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the fixed amount of $6,000.

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.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $42,500 after successfully having the plaintiff's action dismissed on a jurisdictional issue.

The court noted that neither party raised the jurisdictional issue until the pretrial stage, resulting in approximately five years of unnecessary litigation.

Consequently, the court declined to award costs for the entire litigation period and fixed the defendant's costs at $7,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following the plaintiff's successful resistance of a motion brought by the defendant trustees regarding a temple construction project, the plaintiff sought costs.

The plaintiff had previously offered to forego costs if the motion was withdrawn, which the trustees refused.

The court found the plaintiff's claimed costs reasonable and ordered the trustees to pay $7,182.49.

The respondent was successful on a motion and sought costs.

The court noted a history of delay by the applicant and previous findings of contempt of court.

The court fixed costs at 70% of substantial indemnity, ordering the applicant to pay $11,190.82 personally, rather than out of the estate.

The plaintiff estate sued the defendant landlord for personal injuries sustained when the deceased tripped over torn carpet in his rental unit.

The defendant moved to strike the claim, arguing the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction over claims of disrepair and the one-year limitation period under the Residential Tenancies Act had expired.

The court agreed, finding that the essential character of the dispute was a repair claim within the Board's exclusive jurisdiction, rendering the Occupiers' Liability Act inapplicable.

The action was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to vacate a construction lien, arguing the plaintiff registered the lien more than 45 days after the contract was abandoned.

The plaintiff argued that work had merely ceased due to financing issues and the contract was never permanently abandoned.

The court found that ongoing communications between the parties suggested the contract might not have been abandoned, and the defendants failed to provide evidence from their key representative.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the contract was abandoned.

The applicant sought a constructive trust over the matrimonial home located on a First Nation's reserve, claiming unjust enrichment due to his financial and "sweat equity" contributions during the marriage and cohabitation.

The respondent argued that the property was hers due to her Indigenous status and that she bore the primary financial and emotional support for the children after separation.

The court found insufficient evidence of the applicant's quantifiable contributions and determined that the respondent had not been unjustly enriched, particularly considering her sole responsibility for the property's financing and the children's support post-separation.

The applicant's action was dismissed.

Lexfund Inc. sought summary judgment against multiple defendants, including former clients and the estate of their lawyer, Lucio Anthony Ferro, for repayment of litigation loans.

The loans, designed to finance personal injury actions, were structured with high compound interest and a condition of no repayment if the civil action was unsuccessful.

The defendants argued Lexfund failed to comply with the Consumer Protection Act's disclosure requirements, specifically regarding timely and adequate information provided directly to borrowers.

The court found Lexfund in flagrant breach of the Act, noting that loan documents were signed in blank, completed documents were not sent to borrowers, and loan statements were misleading by showing periodic advances instead of a single lump sum.

Consequently, the court dismissed Lexfund's claim for compound interest, finding actual prejudice to the borrowers.

However, recognizing the borrowers benefited from the loans, the court ordered them to repay the principal with simple interest at 5% per annum.

Judgment was also granted against the Ferro defendants for the cumulative amount owing.