J.E. Mills J.

The Crown sought a preservation order under the Civil Remedies Act for currency previously seized by police.

The respondent argued the motion was an impermissible collateral attack on a prior Disposition Order under s. 490 of the Criminal Code that had ordered the funds returned to him.

The court rejected this argument, finding that an order under s. 490 only establishes the right to regain property after a criminal investigation and does not preclude civil forfeiture proceedings.

The preservation order was granted.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion to transfer a Small Claims Court application commenced by the defendant, Go To Loans Inc., to the Superior Court.

The defendant's application sought to discharge the plaintiff's PPSA lien against a vehicle over which the defendant asserted a repair and storage lien.

The court held that while the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate RSLA liens, it lacks jurisdiction to discharge a PPSA lien, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court.

However, rather than transferring the Small Claims Court matter without consent, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to transfer the plaintiff's Superior Court action to the Small Claims Court, allowing the defendant the opportunity to amend its application.

The applicant landlord sought a declaration that the respondent tenant breached a commercial lease and that the lease was validly terminated, seeking vacant possession.

The tenant sought a declaration that the lease was not validly terminated or, alternatively, relief from forfeiture.

The court found that the tenant committed numerous and ongoing breaches, including making significant structural alterations without prior approval or building permits, and installing heavy equipment without consent.

The court held that the landlord properly terminated the lease and that the tenant's deliberate and flagrant conduct disentitled it to the equitable remedy of relief from forfeiture.

The landlord's application was granted and the tenant's application was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought the parties' child from Quebec to Ontario without notice, alleging coercive control and extreme COVID-19 isolation by the respondent father.

She sought to have the Ontario Superior Court assume jurisdiction over parenting matters under s. 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act, arguing the child would suffer serious harm if returned.

The court declined to assume jurisdiction, finding that s. 23 is intended for international cases involving non-signatories to the Hague Convention, not domestic inter-provincial disputes where the Quebec Superior Court is equally bound to consider the child's best interests.

The application was stayed pending a decision from the Quebec court on whether it would decline jurisdiction.

The parties resolved all issues except parenting time and child support for their six-year-old child.

The respondent sought equal parenting time on a 2/2/3 schedule, while the applicant opposed, citing concerns about after-school care and the respondent's support network.

The court found that both parents were capable and loving, and that transitioning to equal parenting time was in the child's best interests.

The court ordered a 2/2/3 shared parenting schedule.

The court also rejected the applicant's argument that the respondent was intentionally underemployed, finding his reduced hours accommodated his parenting time.

The applicant was ordered to pay $532 per month in child support based on the shared parenting arrangement.

The applicant mother sought permission to relocate with her seven-year-old child to Lebanon.

The mother had sole custody and was the primary caregiver, but struggled financially in Canada and wished to return to her family support system in Lebanon.

The respondent father opposed the move, fearing he would lose contact with the child.

The court applied the newly amended relocation provisions of the Divorce Act.

While acknowledging the mother's financial vulnerability and the father's history of coercive control, the court ultimately dismissed the application.

The court found that the mother's proposed parenting plan was too vague, failed to adequately facilitate the father's parenting time, and that relocating to Lebanon posed safety and security risks that were not in the child's best interests.