John F. Black

The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant, sought leave under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act to proceed with an application against the respondent municipality.

The applicant sought an order allowing him to construct a religious memorial on his mother's grave that exceeded the municipality's by-law size limits.

The court found that the application was an abuse of process, as it attempted to relitigate the exact same issues and claims that had been dismissed in multiple previous proceedings.

The application for leave to proceed was dismissed.

The appellant, a declared vexatious litigant, filed a Notice of Appeal from three interlocutory orders regarding his application to construct a religious memorial on his mother's grave.

The Divisional Court reviewed the Notice of Appeal under Rule 2.1.01 and struck it out as an abuse of process, noting that the orders were interlocutory and required leave to appeal, and that the appellant had failed to obtain leave to proceed under section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

This appeal concerns the division of a Canadian Forces pension as family property under the Family Law Act.

The appellant sought to divide her pension through monthly payment splits at source, while the respondent sought an immediate lump-sum transfer.

The trial judge ordered a lump-sum transfer to satisfy an equalization payment of $313,002.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding that the Pension Benefits Division Act only permits lump-sum divisions of federal pensions and that section 10.1(5) of the Family Law Act does not preclude lump-sum transfers when a pension is in pay.

The court dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the respondent.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment by the plaintiff landlord in a commercial lease dispute, the court determined the quantum and scale of costs.

The lease contained an indemnification clause providing for solicitor and client costs.

Applying the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, reducing the claimed amount slightly for proportionality, resulting in a total costs award of $59,851.36.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant tenant for damages arising from the early termination of a commercial lease.

The tenant had vacated the premises without providing the required six months' notice or paying the 24 months' rent stipulated in the lease's early termination clause.

The tenant argued the landlord had forfeited the lease by changing the locks and counterclaimed for damages.

The court found the tenant had unilaterally terminated the lease and abandoned the premises, entitling the landlord to re-enter and claim the liquidated damages.

Summary judgment was granted to the landlord and the tenant's counterclaim was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought motions for interim sole custody, relocation to Toronto with the children, child support, and spousal support.

The respondent father cross-moved for interim joint custody and the interim sale of the matrimonial home.

The court granted interim joint custody, finding that the mother had limited the father's parenting role.

The mother's motion to relocate was dismissed as there was a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the move was in the children's best interests.

The court ordered the father to pay ongoing and retroactive child support, as well as ongoing spousal support based on the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The father's motion for the interim sale of the matrimonial home was dismissed as it could prejudice the mother's equalization claim.

This trial decision addresses complex family law issues following a long marriage, including child support, special expenses, and property equalization.

The court determined the appropriate income for child support calculations by imputing a portion of the applicant's employment expenses and excluding a non-recurring RRSP withdrawal.

It also clarified the duration of child support for an adult child pursuing education.

For property equalization, the court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home and a lump-sum payment from the applicant's Canadian Forces pension to the respondent, grossed-up for the respondent's future tax liability.

Claims for past special expenses were dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking expanded parenting time with his young child, including overnight access, while the respondent mother sought sole custody and continued supervised access for the father.

The court considered allegations of past domestic violence, the child’s young age, the status quo of supervised access, and recommendations from an Office of the Children’s Lawyer investigation.

The court found that while concerns regarding anger issues existed, the strict supervision regime was overly restrictive and risk could be managed through structured conditions.

The child remained primarily in the mother’s care, but the court ordered a graduated schedule increasing the father’s parenting time and introducing overnight access.

The order included behavioural conditions, supervision within the father’s household, and a future review following renewed OCL involvement.

The appellant appealed a trial decision granting the respondent sole custody of their three-year-old child, granting the appellant supervised access, and issuing a five-year restraining order against him.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by refusing to adjourn the trial and by precluding him from calling his treating psychiatrist.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly exercised his discretion to proceed given the child's best interests and the length of the proceedings.

The Court also held that the appellant failed to comply with the Family Law Rules for expert witnesses, and the psychiatrist's evidence would not have altered the overwhelming evidence supporting sole custody and supervised access.

The appellant commenced two actions against the municipality regarding the removal of religious objects from his mother's grave and the administrative process concerning a monument.

The motion judge struck out most of the claims on the basis of res judicata and abuse of process, as they overlapped with previous Divisional Court litigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, finding no error in the application of res judicata or the setting aside of a noting in default.

The Court allowed the municipality's cross-appeal in part, striking an additional subparagraph and a jury notice, while declining to order security for costs.