Jennifer Anne Klotz

On appeal from a trial judgment ordering the sale of the matrimonial home, the appellant challenged the order on the grounds that the trial judge failed to consider the best interests of the parties' three children who had resided in the home since the 2012 separation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the trial judge properly considered the relevant criteria and the best interests of the children.

The respondent had a prima facie right to partition and sale, and the appellant failed to demonstrate malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct that would preclude the sale.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

In a construction lien trial arising from a window and door supply-and-install contract for a mixed-use property renovation, the owners alleged the contractor failed to perform masonry work, supplied non-conforming products, and performed deficient installation work, then counterclaimed after removing the installed windows and terminating the contract.

The court found the contractor had no contractual obligation to perform masonry work, had substantially supplied the contracted products save for a transom it was prepared to replace, and that the alleged deficiencies were largely unfinished items that could have been remedied had access not been denied.

The owners' termination was held to be an unjustified repudiation of the contract.

Judgment was granted for the unpaid balance of $11,770 together with prejudgment interest at 10% per annum, a lien in that amount, and dismissal of the counterclaim.

The appellant wife appealed the trial judge's decision upholding a cohabitation agreement that released her claims to spousal support and the determination of income for child support purposes.

The parties had signed the agreement before marriage, whereby the wife released all claims to spousal support.

Upon separation after an 18-year relationship and two children, the wife sought spousal support.

The trial judge upheld the agreement and dismissed her claim.

The Court of Appeal applied the two-stage Miglin test and found no error of law or misapprehension of fact.

The court upheld the trial judge's findings regarding the circumstances of the agreement's execution and its substantial compliance with the Divorce Act objectives.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the husband.

Following the dismissal of both the plaintiff's action and the defendants' counterclaim, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $69,195.59, while the plaintiff argued she was entitled to costs due to the defendants' bad faith and breach of a standstill agreement.

The court noted that although the plaintiff succeeded on the issue of a joint family venture, the action remained a civil proceeding, making the Family Law Rules inapplicable.

Finding divided success but slightly more success for the defendants, and considering the defendants' conduct, the court awarded the defendants costs fixed at $30,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

This case involved a motion and cross-motion for interim relief in a family law dispute.

The Mother sought sole interim custody of the child and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, while the Father sought access and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court granted the Mother sole interim custody and exclusive possession, emphasizing the child's best interests and the Mother's financial position.

The Father was granted unsupervised access, as the court found no evidence of danger to the child to warrant denial or supervision.

The Father's request for the sale of the matrimonial home was denied, as his beneficial interest had not yet been established on an interim basis.

The plaintiff sought monetary relief based on unjust enrichment arising from a joint family venture with the defendant, David Brathwaite, and his corporations.

The court found that a joint family venture existed and the plaintiff's claim was not statute-barred due to ongoing reconciliation efforts.

However, the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove a disproportionate accumulation of wealth by the defendant linked to her contributions, or to quantify the alleged enrichment and deprivation.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment was dismissed, as was the defendant's counterclaim.

This costs endorsement followed a plaintiff's motion to amend her Statement of Claim at the outset of trial, which resulted in an adjournment.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs for costs thrown away and for the motion to amend.

The court considered the principles for compensatory cost awards on motions to amend, rejecting the plaintiff's arguments regarding prematurity, unsupported impecuniosity, and alleged inequitable conduct by the defendants.

While finding no substantive grounds to deny costs, the court adjusted the defendants' requested amounts due to identified duplication of effort and time not truly "thrown away," ultimately awarding the defendants $22,500.00 on a substantial indemnity basis for costs thrown away and $1,500.00 on a partial indemnity basis for the motion to amend.

During the trial, the plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend her Statement of Claim after the trial judge noted her pleadings contained irreconcilable theories regarding her interest in two corporations.

The plaintiff sought to amend her claim to assert unjust enrichment and constructive trust arising from a joint family venture with the individual defendant, while abandoning claims of legal ownership.

The court granted leave to amend the pleadings to advance the unjust enrichment and constructive trust claims, finding that such claims may not have vested in her trustee in bankruptcy if they crystallized after her discharge.

However, the court denied leave to amend claims asserting legal or beneficial ownership, as those would have vested in the trustee upon her voluntary assignment in bankruptcy.

The accused brought a Mills application seeking production of third-party records held by medical providers, telecommunications companies, police services, and probation officers.

The application involved a sexual assault and assault causing bodily harm charge arising from an intimate relationship that had ended.

The court conducted a two-stage analysis under sections 278.3 to 278.9 of the Criminal Code, balancing the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the complainant's privacy interests.

The court granted production of certain hospital records, telephone records, police records relating to prior investigations, and police occurrence reports involving dishonesty allegations, while denying production of the complainant's telephone records, family physician records, and probation records.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing the action for delay.

The action, which involved a claim for damages for false allegations of criminal behaviour, was dismissed after the plaintiff failed to meet a timetable deadline to set the action down for trial.

The Master applied the test for setting aside an administrative dismissal, finding that the delay was adequately explained, the deadline was missed due to inadvertence, the motion was brought promptly, and the plaintiff rebutted the presumption of prejudice.

The motion was granted and the dismissal order was set aside.

Following judgment granting the applicant ownership and possession of a property and partial monetary relief against the respondents, the court addressed costs.

Although the applicant was successful on the principal issue and recovered some monetary relief, she had claimed substantially larger damages and succeeded on only a fraction of those claims.

Both parties had taken extreme litigation positions and rejected settlement opportunities.

Considering the discretionary factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the familial context of the dispute, the court concluded that neither side achieved sufficient success to justify a costs award.

The court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The applicant, a Black woman employed as a Case Manager, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and ethnic origin by her employer and its Executive Director.

She claimed she was subjected to racial comments, her time with clients of colour was restricted, she was demoted, and her complaints were ignored.

The Tribunal found insufficient reliable evidence to support the allegations, noting inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence and a lack of corroboration.

The application was dismissed.