Jessica Abou-Eid

Following a five-day family law trial where the applicant was almost entirely successful, she sought costs.

The self-represented respondent did not file responding submissions.

The court found the respondent's behaviour during the litigation to be highly unreasonable, though not amounting to bad faith, as he failed to produce documents, reneged on a settlement, and prolonged the trial.

The court ordered the respondent to pay costs to the applicant in the all-inclusive amount of $26,173.99.

The moving party mother brought a motion seeking week-about parenting time for her two children, aged 15 and 8.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer reported that the older child preferred visiting every second Saturday, and the younger child preferred day visits only due to anxiety.

The court dismissed the request for week-about parenting, ordering day visits for the younger child on Saturdays and maintaining the current arrangement for the older child.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant sought spousal support and a monetary remedy of $59,400 for unjust enrichment following the breakdown of a seven-year common law relationship.

Both parties were initially in the military, but the applicant voluntarily left and subsequently struggled to maintain full-time employment.

The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding the respondent did not receive a tangible benefit from the applicant's career decisions.

However, the court found the applicant entitled to needs-based spousal support.

Finding the applicant intentionally under-employed, the court imputed income to her and awarded a lump sum spousal support payment of $16,276 for a four-year period.

The plaintiff brought an action against his insurer and three individuals after his truck was allegedly stolen and he was subsequently shot in the leg during a confrontation.

The plaintiff, the insurer, and one of the individual defendants each brought motions for summary judgment on consent.

The court found that the plaintiff had fraudulently reported his truck stolen after storing it in a defendant's barn, in an attempt to collect insurance proceeds.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claims against the insurer for breach of contract and negligence were dismissed.

The plaintiff's claims for physical and psychological injuries against the individual defendants were not suitable for summary judgment due to a lack of proper expert medical evidence and were directed to proceed to trial.

The applicant, charged with first degree murder, brought a motion requesting that the trial judge disqualify herself on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant argued that comments made by the judge during the applicant's bail hearing and in the reasons for decision demonstrated negative conclusions about the applicant's character.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the comments were made in the context of assessing the evidence for the bail hearing and did not demonstrate a predisposition or prejudgment of the critical issues for the upcoming jury trial.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, sought leave to cross-examine the affiant of a general warrant that led to the collection of her DNA.

The applicant argued that the police failed to disclose opportunities to collect cast-off DNA without a warrant, which undermined the precondition that the warrant was in the best interests of the administration of justice.

The court applied the Garofoli test and granted leave, finding that cross-examination on the availability of cast-off DNA was necessary to ensure the applicant's right to make full answer and defence.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to transfer a Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court of Justice in order to pursue substantially higher damages.

The action originally sought damages within the Small Claims Court monetary jurisdiction, but the plaintiff later asserted losses exceeding $400,000 arising from the repossession of a leased truck and resulting business losses and health consequences.

The court considered the principles governing transfers from Small Claims Court, including the court’s inherent jurisdiction to permit a transfer where appropriate.

Relying on authorities addressing when a plaintiff may pursue the claim in its “real dimensions,” the court held that the circumstances justified a transfer despite the plaintiff’s earlier choice of forum.

The motion was granted, but costs were awarded to the defendant because the need for the motion arose from the plaintiff’s own procedural error.