Jasminka Kalajdzic

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their motion to set aside default judgments totaling approximately $115,000.

The appellants argued they were victims of identity theft, were never served with the claims, and that a fraudster had taken out the loans and hired a paralegal to negotiate on their behalf.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding errors in the Deputy Judge's findings that the appellants were properly served and that their fraudster theory defied logic.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, 2719149 Ontario Inc. o/a Reef Bakery, sought and obtained an interlocutory injunction after being locked out of its leased premises by the respondent landlord, 1000960018 Ontario Inc. The dispute centered on whether the lease was properly renewed and the calculation of additional rent.

The court found a strong prima facie case for the applicant, irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.

The court ordered the applicant be permitted to regain possession of the premises and restrained the respondent from interfering with the applicant’s possession pending final determination.

The applicant father brought a mid-trial motion for interim orders regarding the children's school enrolment and summer parenting schedule.

The father sought to keep the children at their current private Montessori school, while the respondent mother wished to transfer them to a local publicly funded Catholic school.

The court applied the factors for school placement and found it was in the children's best interests to maintain the status quo at the Montessori school to minimize disruption, given the high-conflict nature of the separation.

The court also ordered a compromise summer parenting schedule that expanded the father's parenting time, including overnight visits and long weekends, consistent with the maximum contact principle.

This costs endorsement follows the granting of an interlocutory injunction to restrain a blockade at the applicant’s premises.

The court considered written submissions on costs and, applying the relevant legal principles and factors, ordered the respondents to pay the applicant $14,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The decision reviews the purposes of costs, proportionality, and the appropriateness of awarding costs forthwith after an interlocutory injunction, referencing relevant case law and statutory provisions.

The court considered whether the Last Will and Testament of Lynn Gloria Gamble, dated January 7, 2021, should be found valid and fully effective despite irregularities in its execution and the absence of the original.

The applicant, Robert Dunham, sought to have the will validated and a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee issued.

The respondent, Clarence Earl Gamble Jr., argued that the will was revoked and requested production of RBC safety deposit box access records.

The court found that the applicant had rebutted the presumption of revocation, validated the will under section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act, and deemed the Windsor Cancer Centre Foundation to be the intended beneficiary.

No costs were awarded.

The Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex sought orders for extended society care for two children, KP and KLP, on the basis of ongoing risk of physical harm due to the mother’s unaddressed mental health and substance abuse issues, lack of cooperation, and inconsistent parenting.

The court found the children in need of protection under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and ordered extended society care with supervised access to the mother and sibling access.

The decision details the evidence, credibility findings, and the legal framework for child protection, disposition, and access orders.

This decision addresses the terms of access between a child, C, his mother, and his siblings in a child protection context.

The court orders liberal, minimally supervised access between C and his mother, and regular sibling access, emphasizing the best interests of the child and the importance of sibling relationships.

The court also clarifies its jurisdiction to designate a child as an access holder under a s. 102 custody order, ensuring the child’s ability to bring an openness application in future adoption proceedings.

The decision addresses a motion by Heather Lynne Brose for partition and sale of the matrimonial home, an advance on equalization, and financial disclosure in the context of divorce and equalization proceedings.

The court grants partition and sale, with a four-month stay, orders disclosure by a set date, and grants leave to amend pleadings.

The court reviews the legal principles governing partition and sale, the interplay with the Family Law Act, and the requirements for financial disclosure.

The court considered a motion by The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company (incorrectly named as Travelers Canada) for leave to amend the statement of claim, dismissal of the main action, a sealing order, and default judgment against Jamie Balasin.

The court granted leave to amend the misnomer and dismissed the main action with leave to continue the crossclaim, but stayed the default judgment motion pending proper service of the crossclaim and denied the sealing order, emphasizing the open court principle.

The court granted an interlocutory injunction to Titan Tool & Die Limited, restraining Unifor, its Local 195, and named individuals from blockading the applicant’s premises and obstructing the removal of customer-owned tooling.

The decision addresses whether the dispute was a “labour dispute” under the Courts of Justice Act, the procedural and jurisdictional issues raised, and the application of the RJR-MacDonald test for interlocutory injunctions.

The court found the protest was not a labour dispute, that the requirements for an injunction were met even if it were, and that the balance of convenience, irreparable harm, and serious issue to be tried all favoured granting the injunction.

The applicant, Lorri Lynn Parkins, sought an order for partition and sale of the matrimonial home as interim relief in her application to set aside a separation agreement with the respondent, Douglas John Parkins.

The court declined to order the sale, finding that it would prejudice the respondent’s rights under the agreement, which had not yet been set aside.

However, the court ordered the respondent to pay the shortfall from the initial equalization payment and to resume full monthly payments, as his unilateral reductions were improper.

Costs were not awarded, as success was divided.

The court denied the defendants' motion to adjourn a scheduled trial pending the outcome of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) application.

The court found that the defendants delayed bringing the application and that the interests of justice, including the plaintiff's need for timely resolution and access to treatment, outweighed the defendants' arguments.

The court ordered the trial to proceed as scheduled and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The court found Bryan Lozon in contempt for failing to deliver three of four specific snowmobiles as required by a Court of Appeal order, concluding that he had tampered with VIN tags and delivered incomplete or incorrect items.

The decision reviews the factual background, the evidence regarding each snowmobile, and the legal test for contempt, ultimately finding that Bryan's explanations were not credible and that he had wilfully failed to comply with the order.

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay an action arising from a cottage sale dispute on the basis of res judicata, abuse of process, and multiple unpaid costs orders from prior related proceedings.

The court held that the plaintiff's new claim merely attempted to re-litigate the enforceability of an agreement of purchase and sale that had already been decided against him in earlier proceedings and unsuccessfully challenged on appeal.

The court found both cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel established, and further held that the plaintiff's failure to pay outstanding costs orders independently justified dismissal under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The claim against the second defendant was also struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

In the alternative, the court held that security for costs of $42,940 would have been appropriate if the action were to continue.

The court considered costs following a motion by the defendants to dismiss the plaintiffs’ action for delay and breaches of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although the motion to dismiss was denied, the court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants $4,000 in costs, citing the plaintiffs’ repeated non-compliance with court orders and litigation delay.

The decision discusses the principles governing costs, including the court’s discretion, the impact of blameworthy conduct, and the effect of settlement offers.

The court considered a motion by Brian Joseph Serapiglia to stay enforcement of a support order by the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) and suspend his obligation to pay spousal support.

The court found a material change in circumstances justifying a stay and suspension of spousal support effective December 31, 2023, but declined to grant the full relief sought.

The decision reviews the jurisdiction of the Superior Court to grant such relief, the applicable legal test, and the evidence of hardship, urgency, and clean hands.

The Estate Trustees sought the court's advice and direction regarding the sale of a family cottage to pay estate debts, as two beneficiaries (also respondents) made a higher offer after an arm's length offer was accepted.

The court found the Estate Trustees acted in good faith and fairly, and directed them to accept the higher offer from the beneficiaries.

The court also declined to order a full accounting of the deceased's pre-death financial affairs.

The defendant, 2756646 Ontario Inc. (Mitchell Woods), brought a motion to discharge five certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) registered against nine properties.

The plaintiffs had obtained these CPLs based on Agreements of Purchase and Sale (APS) for homes that were never built.

Mitchell Woods argued the APS were not enforceable against it as it was not the named vendor and that damages would be an adequate remedy.

The plaintiffs contended that Hira Custom Homes Inc. acted as Mitchell Woods' agent, or Mitchell Woods was implicitly referenced in the APS, or a constructive trust arose.

The court found a triable issue regarding the plaintiffs' interest in the land based on agency or implied terms.

Considering the equities, particularly the advantageous terms of the APS and the defendant's failure to provide evidence of its ability to pay damages, the court dismissed the motion to discharge the CPLs.