Jamie K. Trimble

The defendants brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's litigation guardian, arguing he was in a conflict of interest as an unsatisfied judgment creditor of the plaintiff.

The court found that the litigation guardian lacked the required indifference to the outcome of the litigation due to his status as a judgment creditor.

The motion was granted, the litigation guardian was removed, and the Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed in his place.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order dismissing her motion to change a previous order regarding custody, access, and residence, and ordering her to pay $540 per month in child support for two children.

The Divisional Court found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was no material change in circumstances to justify varying the custody order, noting the children's ages and expressed wishes.

The court also held that the appellant failed to demonstrate a palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's findings regarding her income and the dependency status of one of the children.

The appeal was dismissed.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy on the basis that the landlords had entered into a valid agreement of purchase and sale and the purchaser required possession in good faith.

The tenant argued the agreement was invalid because it required vacant possession on closing, and that the Board erred in interpreting her lease as month-to-month.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenant's arguments raised questions of mixed fact and law rather than extricable questions of law, and that the Board did not breach procedural fairness in refusing to summons the property manager.

The accused, charged with assault and sexual assault, brought an application for the production of third-party records, specifically police occurrence reports and officers' notes relating to previous complaints made by the complainant.

Following an initial ruling, the court reviewed the officers' notes to determine appropriate redactions.

The court ordered the release of the notes to the accused, subject to redactions protecting the identity and privacy of third parties and removing references to a separate youth record.

The plaintiffs (daughter and her partner) sued the defendant (father) for specific performance or damages for breach of an alleged oral agreement to sell the family home to them.

The plaintiffs moved into the home and completed extensive renovations, believing they had an agreement to purchase the home at a discounted price and an extension of the closing date.

The court found that there was no enforceable oral agreement to transfer the property because there was no meeting of the minds on the fundamental term of price, nor was there an agreement to extend the closing date.

The claim for specific performance was dismissed as the property was not objectively unique.

However, the court awarded the plaintiffs $178,860.70 in damages for unjust enrichment to compensate them for the cost of the renovations that increased the value of the defendant's home.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the jury notices filed by the defendants in two related actions: a motor vehicle accident claim and a broker negligence claim.

The plaintiffs argued the trial was too complex for a jury and cited uncertainties regarding jury trials due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion, adopting a modified 'wait-and-see' approach, holding that it was premature to strike the jury notices for a trial scheduled seven months away, and that the actions were not too complex for a jury.

Following a settlement on parenting issues where the respondent admitted to a campaign of parental alienation, the applicant sought full indemnity costs.

The court awarded the applicant $146,013.55 in full indemnity costs, noting the respondent's unreasonable and bad faith conduct throughout the litigation.

Additionally, the court varied a previous costs order against the applicant to $0.00, as it had been based on the respondent's false affidavit.

The respondents, NYX Tannery Ltd. and the City of Mississauga, brought a motion to amend the Title of Proceedings to include the applicant's other name, Julie Samantha Lawrence, for enforcement purposes.

The applicant, Julie Daly, opposed the motion and also requested the judge's recusal and an adjournment.

The court dismissed the recusal and adjournment requests, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and no valid grounds for adjournment, including that the anti-SLAPP motion stay did not apply.

The court granted the motion to amend the Title of Proceedings, finding no prejudice to the applicant that could not be compensated by costs.

The appellants appealed an interlocutory order dismissing their motion to strike the respondent's counterclaim for defamation and civil conspiracy.

The respondent, a former condominium board member, alleged he was the victim of a smear campaign orchestrated by the appellants that led to his removal from the board.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and struck the counterclaim without leave to amend.

The Court held that the respondent failed to plead a prima facie case of defamation against any specific individual, which is a prerequisite to relying on the modern, relaxed approach to defamation pleadings.

The civil conspiracy claim was also struck as it was entirely duplicative of the defective defamation claim.

The appellant abandoned her appeal, and the respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the appeal was meritless and brought solely to delay the sale of the matrimonial home.

The appellant opposed, blaming her lawyer and citing financial inability.

The Divisional Court agreed with the respondent that the appeal lacked merit and was used as a delay tactic.

The court awarded the respondent $3,500 in costs, to be paid from the appellant's share of the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision dismissing a grievance regarding kindergarten class sizes.

The arbitrator had interpreted O. Reg. 132/12 under the Education Act as requiring class size caps to be determined only on a specified date in September, allowing sizes to fluctuate thereafter.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the arbitrator's interpretation, based on the text, context, and purpose of the regulation, was internally coherent and justified.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The litigation guardian for the plaintiff, who sustained catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident and lacked capacity, sought court approval for the settlement of his tort and accident benefits claims.

The court found the settlement amounts of $300,000 for the tort claim and $400,000 for the accident benefits claim to be fair and reasonable.

However, the court found the contingency fee agreement with the plaintiff's lawyers to be neither fair nor reasonable, as it was signed when the lawyers doubted the plaintiff's capacity.

The court reduced the legal fees to 17% for the accident benefits claim and 25% for the tort claim.

M & P Tool Products Inc. sought summary judgment against David Lawson for civil fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, and dismissal of Lawson's counterclaim for intentional infliction of mental injury and harassment.

Lawson resisted, arguing that M & P condoned the fraud and that his counterclaim required a trial.

The court found that M & P's knowledge of Lawson's fraudulent activities was central to both the main action and Lawson's defence of condonation, raising significant credibility issues that could not be resolved on a written record.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed in its entirety, requiring a full trial.

The plaintiff brought an action against his former employee and her company for repayment of an alleged oral loan used to lease a commercial truck.

The defendants argued the funds were a gift or, alternatively, loaned to the corporation rather than the individual defendant.

The court assessed the credibility of the parties and concluded the funds were a loan made personally to the individual defendant.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiff in the amount of $34,459, representing the proven advances, plus 5% interest pursuant to the Interest Act.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision to strike their jury notices in two related motor vehicle accident actions.

The motion judge had struck the jury notices solely due to anticipated delays caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, without relying on specific evidence regarding the length of the delay or its impact on the parties or the administration of justice.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that while delay and the pandemic's impact on the administration of justice are valid considerations, striking a jury notice based on a general assertion of delay without specific, localized evidence is arbitrary.

The appeal was granted without prejudice to the plaintiffs renewing the motion with proper evidence.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

At the hearing, the respondent tenants did not appear.

The court noted that the respondents' counsel had been removed from the record by a prior order, which was not in the court file, and the respondents had vacated the rental unit without leaving a forwarding address.

As there was no evidence that the respondents had been advised of the hearing date, the Divisional Court adjourned the appeal to a date to be set by the Registrar.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) to strike the plaintiffs' claims for declaratory relief regarding express, resulting, and constructive trusts, as well as fraudulent conveyances.

The plaintiffs, who are judgment creditors, alleged that the defendants transferred properties to their spouses to defeat creditors.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the plaintiffs had pleaded sufficient facts to support their claims and that it was not plain and obvious the claims would fail.

The court also granted the plaintiffs' countermotion for a discovery plan.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change the child's primary residence to her home in Barrie and enroll him in a local school.

The respondent father opposed, seeking to maintain the status quo of week-about parenting with the child attending school virtually in Pembroke due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the mother failed to prove a move to Barrie was in the child's best interests, noting the child's established connections in Pembroke.

Applying recent jurisprudence, the court held there is a presumption that in-person schooling is in a child's best interest absent compelling evidence to the contrary, which the father failed to provide.

The court ordered the child to reside primarily with the father and attend school in person in Pembroke, with the mother having alternate weekend access.

In an ongoing estate dispute between a widow and her children, the applicant widow brought a motion to add two corporate parties, admit a late affidavit regarding her health, substitute written interrogatories for oral cross-examination, and determine the scope of cross-examination.

The court added the corporate parties, finding one to be a necessary party.

The court admitted the late affidavit but excluded the attached medical reports as inadmissible hearsay.

The court declined to dispense with oral cross-examination, finding insufficient evidence of serious harm, but ordered specific accommodations for the 93-year-old applicant.

Finally, the court limited the scope of cross-examination to the three issues previously deemed urgent to conserve judicial resources.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to determine whether the parties' three-year-old child should attend junior kindergarten in-person or online.

The mother sought in-person attendance, while the respondent father sought online learning, citing the health risks to his elderly parents who lived with him and had comorbidities.

The court also considered the admissibility of reply evidence, admitting two affidavits but excluding a surreptitious surveillance report.

Applying recent case law on pandemic schooling, the court found that while the father's own conduct regarding Covid-19 protocols was troubling, the risk to his parents' health weighed in favour of remote learning.

The court ordered the child to attend junior kindergarten online.