John Bruce Jarvis Legge

A family law motion addressed the interim handling of disputed section 7 expenses held in trust by the respondent’s counsel pending a scheduled trial concerning the termination of child support for an adult child.

The applicant intended to seek dismissal or stay of the respondent’s motion to change for alleged non-compliance with a prior court order requiring continued payment of child support and post‑secondary costs.

The court considered the potential prejudice to both parties, noting the possibility that the respondent had substantially overpaid child support and might be unable to recover any overpayment if the funds were released.

Finding the respondent’s proposed alternatives reasonable and fair, the court ordered that the disputed funds remain in counsel’s trust account pending the outcome of the trial.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $3,500, payable after judgment following the hearing.

The applicant, a radiation therapist, took a leave of absence due to breast cancer and subsequent physical and psychological complications.

She alleged that her employer, Hamilton Health Sciences, discriminated against her by denying her health benefits and failing to accommodate her disability by providing alternate work outside of the cancer care environment.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the applicant's conditions constituted a disability under the Code.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding that the employer had fulfilled both its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate up to the point of undue hardship by extensively searching for suitable alternate positions over several years, which were ultimately unsuccessful due to the applicant's specific restrictions and lack of transferable skills.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judge's decision to strike his pleadings and preclude his participation at a family law trial, as well as the resulting corollary relief orders.

The trial judge struck the pleadings after finding the appellant committed egregious and continuing breaches of non-depletion and restraining orders, and failed to meet disclosure obligations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion to impose the severe sanction given the appellant's intransigence and the likelihood that his participation would only prolong the trial without advancing its truth-seeking purpose.

The Court also dismissed a motion to introduce fresh medical evidence and upheld the trial judge's substantive awards for equalization, child support, and spousal support.

The deceased's ex-wife and his common-law partner both claimed entitlement to his surviving spousal pension benefit.

The OMERS Appeal Sub-committee found in favour of the common-law partner.

The ex-wife successfully applied for judicial review, with the Divisional Court quashing the decision on the basis that the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the standard of review for the legal obligation to give reasons is correctness, not reasonableness.

Applying a functional approach, the Court found the Tribunal's reasons were sufficient as they explained why the decision was made and permitted effective judicial review.

The appeal was allowed and the application for judicial review dismissed.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's decision to approve the discontinuance of the respondents' national class action and dismiss the appellant's claim for an anti-suit injunction.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's determination that the interests of absent class members would not be prejudiced by the discontinuance under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, who received silicone gel breast implants that allegedly leaked or ruptured, commenced a proposed class action against Health Canada for regulatory negligence.

They alleged that Health Canada breached a private law duty of care by failing to properly regulate, test, or warn consumers about the hazards of the implants under the Food and Drugs Act.

The motion judge dismissed the certification motion, finding it plain and obvious that the claim disclosed no cause of action because the legislative scheme did not impose a private law duty of care on the government.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the government's duty under the Act is owed to the public as a whole, not to individual consumers, and that no proximate relationship existed.

The appellant brought a proposed class action against Health Canada, alleging negligent regulation of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) implants.

The motion judge struck the claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that it was plain and obvious that Health Canada did not owe a private law duty of care to individual consumers of medical devices.

The statutory scheme did not create a proximate relationship, and the pleadings failed to allege specific representations or reliance that would establish proximity under the Anns/Cooper test.

The applicant sought judicial review of an OMERS Appeal Sub-Committee decision that found the respondent was the common-law spouse of the deceased and entitled to his pension death benefits.

The applicant argued the tribunal breached procedural fairness and that its decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court held that while the tribunal's pre-hearing procedures were fair, its written reasons were too brief and conclusory to allow for meaningful review.

The court could not determine if the tribunal properly applied the legal test for common-law status or correctly placed the burden of proof.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant father appealed an order limiting child support payable by the respondent mother to the period of October 2004 to December 2005, arguing support should continue until the child graduated from university.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge was entitled to conclude the appellant failed to prove the child, who was over 16, had not withdrawn from his charge and remained dependent.

Leave to appeal the costs order was also denied, and the appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.

The appellant sought to appeal an order denying an emergency change of custody.

The motion judge had declined to grant the emergency change, leaving the full motion for variation of custody to be heard at a later date.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that the order below was interlocutory and therefore not appealable to the Court of Appeal.

Following the dismissal of both the appeal and cross-appeal, the appellant sought $2,777.15 for the costs of transcripts.

The respondent opposed, arguing not all transcripts were necessary and that he had borne the cost of some.

The Court of Appeal ordered the parties to bear their own costs, citing divided success and the issues raised on the appeal and cross-appeal.

The wife appealed and the husband cross-appealed a variation judgment concerning child and spousal support.

The trial judge had imputed an annual income of $175,000 to the husband, varied child support retroactively to the implementation of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, fixed arrears, and dismissed the wife's application to extend spousal support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, including the imputed income and arrears calculations.

The Court also rejected the husband's claim of judicial bias, concluding the trial judge's interventions did not usurp the role of counsel or raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Following the dismissal of both the appeal and cross-appeal, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The appellant sought costs for transcripts, while the respondent argued not all transcripts were necessary and that he had borne the cost of some.

Given the divided success, the Court of Appeal ordered that the parties bear their own costs.

The original representative plaintiff in a class action regarding temporomandibular joint implants sought to withdraw and substitute two new representative plaintiffs.

The defendant appealed the motion judge's order allowing the substitution, arguing it prejudiced them by expanding the class and extending the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under s. 28(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, the limitation period is suspended for all class members upon the commencement of the action, not upon certification.

Furthermore, the substituted plaintiffs were already members of the putative class, so the class was not improperly expanded.

The tenants appealed a trial judgment finding their commercial lease invalid and terminating their month-to-month tenancy.

They argued the trial judge erred by excluding the female tenant from the courtroom while her husband testified.

The Court of Appeal held that while excluding a party violates rule 52.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, it did not cause a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice in this case.

The landlord's estate cross-appealed the dismissal of its claim for arrears of rent and taxes.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal in part, finding that while the landlord's course of conduct waived the rent arrears, the tenants' uncorroborated evidence regarding property and business taxes could not defeat the estate's claim under s. 13 of the Evidence Act.

Following a successful appeal regarding the jurisdiction to order the conveyance of a cottage property, the appellant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the respondent's ill-advised interlocutory steps.

The Court of Appeal declined to award substantial indemnity costs, noting the litigation stemmed from the respondent's attempts to secure child support arrears evaded by the other respondent.

Applying the factors from Andrews v. Andrews, the court awarded the appellant modest costs of $3,000.

Three separate appeals were brought challenging a motions judge's order regarding claims related to defective breast implants.

OHIP appealed the striking of its subrogated claim, which the court dismissed, finding the claim was fully satisfied by the Dow Settlement Agreement.

The Attorney General and Dow appealed the dismissal of their motions to strike the plaintiffs' action for regulatory negligence, arguing the settlement agreements barred the claims and constituted an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals, holding that the plaintiffs' several liability claims against the government regulator were different in nature and kind from the settled claims and were not barred by the prior agreements.

The appellant was successful on appeal in setting aside an order to convey a cottage property to the respondent.

All parties sought costs.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs to the appellant despite the respondent's ill-advised interlocutory steps, noting the litigation stemmed from the other respondent's evasion of child support and breach of the Family Law Act.

The court awarded modest costs of $3,000 to the appellant.

The appellant appealed an order requiring her to convey a cottage property to the respondent, Diane Pirner.

The cottage had previously been transferred by the respondent's former husband to a family trust, and then to the appellant.

The application judge ordered the transfer to satisfy security for support and equalization payments.

The Court of Appeal held that the application judge lacked jurisdiction under the Family Law Act to order the appellant to convey the property to the respondent, as the original conveyance was voidable, not void, and the appellant was not a straw person.

The appeal was allowed and the order set aside.

The appellants sued two dental regulatory Colleges in negligence, misfeasance of public office, and breach of Charter rights, alleging the Colleges failed to implement adequate standards to prevent temporomandibular joint injuries during dental hygiene treatments.

The motions judge struck the claims against the Colleges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, applying recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence to hold that the Colleges' statutory duty is to the public as a whole, not to individual patients, and therefore they owe no private law duty of care to the appellants.