Jason Herbert

The plaintiffs and the defendant police officer provided written submissions on costs following the plaintiffs' successful motion for leave to amend their statement of claim.

The defendant argued the plaintiffs' submissions were late, but the court found them timely under the Rules of Civil Procedure as the deadline fell on a weekend.

Although the plaintiffs were successful on the motion, the court expressed concern over the timing of the new, more serious allegations of battery and sexual assault, which the defendant argued were an attempt to circumvent the Limitations Act.

Consequently, the court declined to award costs immediately to the successful plaintiffs, instead fixing costs at $6,500 payable in the cause.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court dealing with title to property at 90 Cotton Grass Street, Kitchener, Ontario.

The property was originally owned by Arthur Painter.

On December 16, 2015, a transfer was registered to Nathan Beaucage and Tracey Storr as joint tenants.

On November 28, 2017, a fraudulent transfer was registered purporting to transfer the property from Nathan and Tracey to Tracey and Arthur.

The application judge set aside the fraudulent 2017 transfer and vested title in Nathan and Tracey with corrected personal information.

The appellants argued the order went beyond addressing the fraudulent transfer and improperly determined issues relating to the validity of the 2015 transfer, which remained to be litigated.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, varying the order to simply declare the 2017 transfer void and direct its deletion from the register, while preserving the certificate of pending litigation and directing consolidation of the pending applications for trial.

The appellant father appealed a summary judgment decision finding his child in need of protection and placing her in the custody of the respondent mother.

The child had threatened suicide during access visits, which the motions judge found was proximately caused by the father's inappropriate conduct and obsession with proving parental alienation syndrome.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge made no palpable and overriding error in relying on the available evidence.

The court also noted that the significant delay in perfecting the appeal rendered the requested remedy of a new trial impractical given the child's age and consistent refusal to see the father.

In a child protection appeal, the Office of the Children's Lawyer sought to admit fresh evidence regarding the views and preferences of the nearly 16-year-old child.

The appellant requested an adjournment to file responding evidence and cross-examine the affiant.

The Divisional Court admitted the fresh evidence and denied the adjournment, finding that the appellant had the evidence for two weeks, which was sufficient time to respond with reasonable diligence, and that child protection cases must take priority.

In a trial arising from a share purchase agreement for a campground business, the plaintiff alleged the vendors failed to disclose the full amount of prepaid rentals and deposits collected before closing.

The court found the defendants selectively disclosed partial information and actively withheld important information concerning prepaid rentals, amounting to intentional misrepresentation.

Relying on the duty of honest performance articulated in Bhasin v. Hrynew, the court held the contractual 12-month warranty limitation did not bar the claim.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiff for $73,856.00, with interest and costs to be addressed if not agreed.

The applicant father brought a motion to change child support and rescind arrears under a 2009 order.

He argued that support should be reduced because one child had left the respondent mother's care and that he should not have to pay section 7 expenses due to the mother's failure to provide receipts.

The court refused to reduce support for a temporary absence of the eldest child but adjusted the ongoing support to reflect that only one child remained eligible.

The court declined to impute additional income to the father beyond his Worker's Compensation benefits.

Arrears and ongoing support were recalculated based on the parties' respective incomes and proven section 7 expenses.