John DiFiore

In a parenting and support dispute following the breakdown of a short common‑law relationship, both parents sought sole custody of their young child.

The court rejected joint custody due to the parties’ inability to cooperate and a pattern of aggressive conflict between them.

Applying the best interests factors under s.24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found that the child had lived in a stable environment with the mother since birth and that she was better able to act in the child’s best interests during conflict.

Sole custody was granted to the mother with significant access to the father structured to align with his parenting time with children from a prior relationship.

The court also ordered table child support, rejected the father’s claim of undue hardship under the Child Support Guidelines, ordered retroactive support, required life insurance security, and awarded limited lump‑sum spousal support.

The defendant by counterclaim sought damages for trespass, property damage, and lost rental income against his siblings following their occupation of a family property.

The plaintiffs' original action claiming an interest in the property had been dismissed for delay, and they were noted in default on the counterclaim.

The court found the plaintiffs liable for trespass, occupation rent, and unjust enrichment, awarding the defendant $44,528.32 in damages for repair costs and lost rental income, plus costs.

The applicants and respondents are neighbours involved in a dispute over a right of way owned by the respondents but used by the applicants to access their properties.

The applicants sought the removal of decorative rocks and fern trees placed on the right of way by the respondents, arguing they impeded access.

The court found that the rocks substantially interfered with the applicants' ability to exit their driveway and ordered their removal.

However, the court found the trees did not impede reasonable access and allowed them to remain.

The court also declared that the respondents are responsible for maintaining and clearing snow from the right of way at their own cost, but the applicants may do so if the respondents fail to fulfill this duty.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to strictly enforce its hiring hall rules against members who obtained work directly from contractors.

The Board found that the union's decision to issue warnings and small fines rather than removing offending members from jobs was not arbitrary, given the longstanding nature of the rule violations and the practical difficulties of immediate strict enforcement.

The complaint was dismissed upon the union's undertaking to notify all members and contractors of strict future enforcement.