James W. Sloan

The applicant sought to vary his spousal support obligations following his retirement at age 62.

The parties had been married for 26 years, during which the respondent stayed home for eight years to care for their children.

The court found the applicant's retirement constituted a material change in circumstances but declined to impute additional income to him.

The court allowed 'double dipping' into the applicant's pension, finding the support was compensatory in nature.

The applicant was ordered to pay $2,250 per month in spousal support and maintain a $100,000 life insurance policy as security.

The accused applied to exclude evidence obtained from extensive computer searches conducted during a child pornography investigation arising from purchases linked to the AZOV website.

The court held that although the search warrant was validly issued and police were entitled to investigate, the method of execution violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Police conducted a sweeping file‑by‑file search of approximately 40 terabytes of digital storage without first using targeted search parameters tied to the specific information known to them.

The court found the search overly intrusive given the narrow investigative grounds and concluded that police failed to pursue the least intrusive means available.

Applying the framework in R. v. Grant, the court excluded most of the discovered child pornography evidence under s. 24(2), admitting only evidence directly tied to the specific AZOV downloads known to investigators.

A costs endorsement following a motion in construction-related litigation involving multiple parties.

The court held that two parties were entitled to independent representation on the motion but found the motion unnecessary because the governing law was clear.

Although the responding parties had a right to bring the dispute before the court, the court emphasized that unsuccessful litigants cannot expect to avoid meaningful cost consequences.

Substantial indemnity costs were declined, and proportionality concerns were considered due to the relatively small claims involved.

Costs were fixed at $5,903.60 for each successful party, payable by the opposing parties in equal shares.

Following a motion in a civil action involving a minor plaintiff, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Although there had been some division of success on the underlying motion, the court found that the plaintiff had been substantially more successful overall.

Exercising its discretion on costs, the court fixed the amount payable rather than requiring further submissions.

The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff costs of the motion in a fixed sum inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 25(11)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike several paragraphs of the statement of claim alleging prior misconduct and knowledge of risk relating to an alleged assault against a minor in a hotel room, or alternatively sought particulars under Rule 25.10.

The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled at the pleading stage to make allegations relevant to negligence and vicarious liability, particularly where the defendants would possess the relevant knowledge regarding prior conduct.

The court declined to strike most of the impugned pleadings but found that certain paragraphs were duplicative or improperly framed as submissions rather than allegations.

The court struck limited portions of the pleading while otherwise allowing the claim to proceed.

Following a family law trial, the court determined the issue of costs after the successful party had made multiple offers to settle for amounts less than the ultimate judgment.

The court found that the trial was unnecessary in light of the earlier offers and that the successful party was therefore entitled to substantial indemnity costs for preparation and attendance at trial.

Because the moving party failed to provide docket details with the original costs submissions, the court independently calculated allowable hours for trial and preparation.

The court fixed legal fees, law clerk time, and disbursements and applied HST to the approved legal fees.

The parties lived in an unmarried domestic arrangement and jointly operated several motel properties over many years.

Following their separation, the plaintiff claimed an interest in the properties based on unjust enrichment and a joint family venture.

The court found that the parties operated as a partnership, contributing equal effort and capital.

The plaintiff was awarded a 50% interest in the Fairview Motel, a 50% share of the proceeds from the sale of the Queensway Motel, a 25% interest in the Hillcrest property, and reimbursement for joint funds unilaterally withdrawn by the defendant.

The plaintiff's claim for spousal support was dismissed.

The court determined the appropriate quantum of costs following a motion where the successful party sought partial indemnity costs.

The responding party challenged the hourly rate claimed, time billed for preparation of an affidavit, and charges related to cross-examinations that did not proceed.

The court accepted the challenges regarding the hourly rate and certain cross‑examination-related charges but rejected the challenge to the affidavit preparation time, finding it necessary for the motion.

Costs were recalculated based on a reduced hourly rate and adjusted disbursements.

The court ordered payment of revised costs inclusive of disbursements.

Following a trial and related injunction proceedings, the successful party sought recovery of its legal costs.

The court reviewed the cost submissions of both parties and determined that the successful party was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found no reason to depart from the amounts claimed for trial preparation, attendance, and injunction-related work.

Costs were fixed in a specified amount payable by the opposing party.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a defamation action arising from allegations that the plaintiff poisoned their mother.

The statement of claim alleged the defendants reported the allegation to police, but the evidence showed that one defendant communicated the allegation to the other, who contacted the coroner, and the coroner then contacted police.

The court held the pleadings failed to allege the actual publication or any republication chain reflected in the evidence.

The court also found that contacting the coroner about a potential criminal act was subject to qualified privilege.

As the plaintiff could not prove the case as pleaded and amendment would not render the claim viable, summary judgment was granted dismissing the action.

A commercial landlord sought relief against a tenant regarding the installation of an ATM machine in leased premises used as a fast food restaurant.

The landlord argued the ATM constituted an impermissible use under the lease because it effectively provided banking services and allowed access by non-customers.

The tenant argued the ATM facilitated cash transactions for customers and reduced payment processing costs.

The court held that the ATM did not alter the permitted use of the premises as a fast food restaurant and did not constitute the offering of banking services.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his conviction and sentence arising from an incident where he retained half of a quantity of marijuana that had been turned over to him while on duty during an internal police investigation.

He argued that the police investigation constituted entrapment and amounted to impermissible random virtue testing under the principles set out in R v Barnes.

The court held that the police had reasonable suspicion based on prior information suggesting chronic marijuana use by the appellant and that the reverse sting operation was a legitimate investigative step.

The court concluded there was no entrapment or abuse of process and upheld both the conviction and sentence, emphasizing the breach of trust inherent in the conduct of a serving police officer.

The court considered a motion by a court‑appointed receiver seeking approval of an agreement of purchase and sale for property owned by the respondent corporation.

The first mortgagee and the second mortgagee supported the proposed sale despite a projected shortfall on the second mortgage.

A shareholder objected, arguing the property should first be marketed through MLS and pointing to higher appraisals.

The court accepted the receiver’s evidence regarding market uncertainties, marketing timelines, and financial realities, including the absence of any realistic economic benefit to the objecting shareholder.

The motion approving the sale was granted.

Costs decision following a family law judgment involving custody and financial issues.

The court found the applicant was substantially successful on both custody and economic issues but reduced the level of costs due to her failure to respond to the respondent’s offer to settle and the absence of a comprehensive written offer before trial.

The court awarded partial costs for the custody issues and partial indemnity costs for the economic issues, fixing total costs payable by the respondent.

The endorsement also addressed corrections to the underlying judgment regarding private school fees, directions relating to Family Responsibility Office accounting adjustments, and responsibility for a professional bill.

In a family law motion concerning parenting arrangements and relocation, the court considered whether the respondent mother should be permitted to relocate with two young children while pregnant with a third child.

The parties had recently separated and the respondent had moved to another community where her extended family resided and where subsidized housing was available.

The court weighed the best interests of the children, including the imminent birth of a third child, the respondent’s high‑risk pregnancy, the availability of family support, and the financial circumstances of the parties.

Although relocation would normally not be permitted at this stage, the court concluded that practical considerations justified allowing the respondent to reside temporarily in the new location on an interim basis.

The court ordered interim parenting arrangements, transportation responsibilities, and temporary child support while the matrimonial home was to be listed for sale.

The court considered whether to confirm or vary a provisional interprovincial support order under s. 19(7) of the Divorce Act.

The moving party had failed to disclose income as required by an earlier order and had stopped paying child support and maintaining life insurance.

The court determined the proper historical incomes of both parties and recalculated guideline child support and section 7 expenses retroactively to 2009, allocating expenses proportionally to income and accounting for the child’s own earnings.

Arrears were calculated for unpaid child support, unpaid section 7 contributions, and insurance premiums.

The provisional order was varied and the moving party was ordered to pay substantial arrears and ongoing support.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking Crown wardship without access for one child, S.M., and a custody order in favour of the mother for the other child, G.M. The father, who was self-represented, opposed the motion and sought custody or access.

The court found that the father had a history of domestic violence, failed to complete a partner assault response program, and presented numerous unrealistic plans of care.

Finding no genuine issue for trial regarding S.M., the court ordered Crown wardship without access.

For G.M., the court ordered a 12-month supervision order with the child remaining in the mother's care and the father having access at the Society's discretion.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim arising from alleged breach of a non‑competition agreement and related fiduciary duties, or alternatively partial summary judgment limiting damages.

The dispute involved whether the defendant employee had signed a non‑competition agreement, whether such an agreement would be enforceable without explicit geographic or activity limits, and whether the defendant owed fiduciary duties to the plaintiff.

The court found that significant factual disputes and credibility issues, including allegations the defendant competed with the plaintiff while still employed and interfered with a business relationship, required a full trial.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.

The motion was dismissed except that the defendants were granted leave to amend their statement of defence.

The defendant moved to set aside a previously granted Mareva injunction that had frozen the proceeds from the sale of his home in a civil action arising from an alleged assault.

The plaintiffs had obtained the injunction ex parte based on concerns that the defendant would dissipate assets and frustrate enforcement of any damages award.

The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendant was removing assets from the jurisdiction or dissipating them outside the ordinary course of living.

Evidence showed the defendant had listed his home for sale because criminal bail conditions prevented him from living there and that he intended to purchase another residence.

Given the extraordinary nature of Mareva relief, the court concluded that continuation of the injunction was not justified and set it aside.

The defendant vendor brought a motion to strike the claim or, alternatively, for summary judgment dismissing an action alleging nondisclosure of a latent defect in a commercial property.

The purchaser relied on a newspaper article quoting a director of the vendor joking that the building was “haunted,” asserting that this indicated an undisclosed death or murder at the property.

The court held there was no evidence that a death had occurred and no evidence that the property suffered from any defect rendering it unfit or dangerous.

Allegations based on rumours of ghosts or property stigma did not constitute a latent defect requiring disclosure.

Summary judgment was granted as there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.