R. John Harper

The accused was charged with two counts of assault and two counts of mischief against his former intimate partner.

The complainant, who suffered from a traumatic brain injury from a prior motor vehicle accident, testified that the accused strangled her on multiple occasions and destroyed her property, including a cell phone, keyboard, and air mattress.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable despite her cognitive challenges, noting significant corroboration from police photographs of the damaged property.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The applicant father brought a motion to have the respondent mother found in contempt of a June 19, 2017 order requiring the children to be enrolled in counselling.

The court found the mother in contempt, determining that she willfully obstructed the commencement of counselling, despite the clear terms of the order and previous judicial directions.

The mother's actions were found to have contributed to protracted litigation and the children's emotional distress.

The applicants, Darshan Atwal and Balwinder Kaur Atwal, brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss a counterclaim by Amandeep Singh Manu.

The counterclaim alleged that Balwinder Kaur Atwal owed Amandeep Singh Manu $225,000 for a pizza restaurant interest, which was to be paid by November 20, 2012.

Amandeep Singh Manu claimed a $100,000 payment from Darshan Atwal in 2014 was a partial payment, leaving a balance of $125,000.

The applicants argued the counterclaim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found the counterclaim was indeed statute-barred as no action was commenced within the two-year limitation period, and the issue was severable from the main action.

The motion for partial summary judgment was granted, dismissing the counterclaim.

The applicant sought orders for outstanding financial disclosure from the respondent and for interim disbursements to fund an expert income analysis.

The court found the respondent had consistently failed to provide complete, accurate, and timely financial disclosure, misrepresenting his income, assets, and liabilities over several years of litigation.

The court ordered the respondent to provide extensive outstanding disclosure within 30 days, including details of retirement plans, corporate entities, tax forms, and financial records from previous divorce proceedings.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay $28,930.00 in interim disbursements to the applicant to cover the expert's fees for completing the income analysis.

The plaintiff, Stephen Deak, brought an action against GreenMantra Recycling Technologies Ltd. concerning the validity of an overtime averaging agreement and a termination clause in his employment contract.

The court found the overtime averaging agreement invalid under section 22 of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, because it lacked an expiry date.

The court also found the termination clause unenforceable as it provided for a notice period less than the minimum prescribed by the ESA, thereby entitling the employee to statutory notice.

The applicant sought costs after successfully obtaining an order for the return of his child and joint custody, following the respondent's unilateral relocation of the child.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith by removing the child without consultation, despite a prior joint custody order.

The court awarded the applicant $5,000 in costs, balancing the bad faith conduct with the impact on the custody order.

The respondent brought three motions, including one for contempt against the applicant for failing to transfer property title as per a prior order.

The other two motions were withdrawn.

The court found the applicant in civil contempt, ruling that the prior order was clear and that the applicant willfully disobeyed it by imposing additional conditions for the transfer not stipulated in the order.

The court ordered the applicant to purge her contempt by signing the transfer documents by a specified date.

Costs were awarded to the respondent for the contempt motion, and costs thrown away were awarded to the applicant for the withdrawn motions, resulting in a net cost award to the respondent.

The applicant sought temporary spousal support, while the respondent sought temporary child support and an order to amend her pleadings.

The parties agreed on child support and the amendment, reserving costs for the amendment to the trial judge.

The court found the applicant had made realistic and continuous efforts to find employment and demonstrated a prima facie case for spousal support, establishing need in the context of the parties' accustomed standard of living during their 11-year cohabitation.

The respondent's claims regarding the applicant's lack of involvement in household and childcare duties were found to lack credibility.

Temporary spousal support was awarded to the applicant, and child support was ordered by consent.

Kristine Jill Hill was found in contempt of a June 28, 2017 order.

This endorsement addresses the sentencing, which included a joint submission, and the quantum of full indemnity costs to be paid by Ms. Hill as part of her sentence.

The court considered principles of reasonableness, indemnity, and factors under Rule 57.01 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found the matter complex, noted unnecessary steps taken by the defendants, and ultimately awarded the plaintiffs the requested costs of $320,899.64.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking the return of the children to his care and to prevent the applicant mother from changing their school.

The mother had unilaterally moved the children from Brantford to Cambridge and enrolled them in a new school without consulting the father or obtaining a court order.

The court strongly condemned the mother's "self-help tactics," emphasizing that such actions undermine the court's ability to assess the children's best interests.

Applying the factors under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court found no justification for the mother's unilateral actions.

The motion was granted, ordering the children's immediate return to their former school and establishing a temporary primary residence with the father from Sunday evening to Friday after school.

The father was directed to file a formal application for custody, and the motion was adjourned for further evidence.

Costs were reserved.

The court addressed several family law issues following a marital separation, including the characterization of a $50,000 advance from the applicant's father (loan vs. gift), the division of chattels, and the respondent's claims for unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and unequal division of net family property.

The court determined the $50,000 was a gift, not a loan, and dismissed the applicant's claim for associated interest.

While the respondent successfully established unjust enrichment due to her significant contributions to childcare for children with special needs and household management, the court declined to award a constructive trust or unequal division of net family property due to insufficient evidence to quantify the monetary value of her contributions and delays by both parties in bringing the application.

However, the respondent's spousal support entitlement was designated as compensatory.

The plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a property and damages for breach of contract.

The transaction failed to close on the stipulated date due to a series of events beyond the plaintiff's control, including technical issues.

The defendant refused to extend the closing, relying on a "time is of the essence" clause.

The court considered the uniqueness of the property and the defendant's good faith, ultimately finding that the "time is of the essence" clause was strictly enforceable and that the defendant did not act in bad faith by insisting on strict compliance.

The plaintiff's applications for specific performance and damages were dismissed.

The defendants, D. Robert Findlay and Findlay Personal Injury Lawyers, sought an order to vary a previous court order and unseal a file related to the plaintiff's accident benefits settlement.

The plaintiff, Jarrod Seth Van Every, had commenced an action against the defendants alleging negligent representation in handling his accident benefits claim.

The defendants argued that the sealed materials were relevant to their defence and counterclaim, which alleged that the plaintiff's losses were caused by an improvident settlement by his subsequent counsel.

The court found that the defendants had standing under Rule 38.11(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure as "persons affected by the judgment" because the sealed materials directly impacted their economic interests in the ongoing litigation.

The motion to unseal the file and produce the affidavit material was granted.

The maternal grandparents applied for custody of their 9-year-old granddaughter following the death of the child's mother.

The father, who had access under a previous court order, also sought custody.

The court found that the child had lived primarily with her maternal grandparents and had a strong attachment to them, and that moving her would cause further trauma.

The court also noted the father's history of alcohol abuse and the high level of conflict between the parties.

Sole custody was awarded to the maternal grandparents, with a specified access schedule for the father, subject to a prohibition on alcohol consumption during access.

The father was also ordered to pay retroactive child support.

This trial addressed complex family law issues including custody and access for two children, spousal and child support, and division of property.

The Applicant mother's allegations of spousal and child abuse were largely rejected by the court, which found her claims fabricated and her actions detrimental to the children's relationship with the Respondent father.

The court prioritized the children's best interests, emphasizing the importance of maintaining relationships with both parents and siblings.

Custody of one child was awarded to the father, and a plan for counselling was ordered to re-establish the other child's relationship with the father.

The mother was found to be underemployed, and her income was imputed for child support purposes.

Spousal support was denied due to a lack of financial interweaving and interdependence during the cohabitation.

Property division for the jointly held home was limited to the mother's direct financial contribution.

Johan Thiessen was convicted by a jury of two counts of possession of cocaine and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and parity, noting the serious nature and high value of the drugs involved.

Despite the accused's lack of criminal record and strong community support, his role as a facilitator by allowing his home to be used as a "stash house" demonstrated reckless disregard.

Balancing these factors against the 6-year sentences received by the main orchestrators of the trafficking scheme, the court imposed a sentence of 4.5 years incarceration, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused, W.R., was charged with sexual assault and sexual touching for a sexual purpose of a person under sixteen years of age (E.D.), his granddaughter's friend, during a sleepover.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and consistent, despite minor inconsistencies on peripheral details, and rejected the inconsistent and evasive testimonies of the accused and his granddaughter.

The court applied the principles of reasonable doubt and credibility assessment, concluding that the Crown proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Anna Thiessen, charged with possession of cocaine and methamphetamine for trafficking, brought an application for a directed verdict at the close of the Crown's case.

The court considered whether there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to infer that she had constructive or attributed possession of the drugs found in a crawl space at her jointly owned property.

Applying the test for a directed verdict, the court found no reasonable inference could be drawn that she had knowledge, consented to, or controlled the drugs.

The application was granted, and Anna Thiessen was acquitted of both counts.

The applicant sought a constructive trust interest in the respondent's home after a 15-year cohabitation.

The court applied the unjust enrichment framework from Kerr v. Baranow, finding no joint family venture and no tangible benefit conferred by the applicant that unjustly enriched the respondent.

The applicant's claim for a constructive trust was dismissed.

A counterclaim for pet damage by the respondent was also dismissed due to lack of mitigation evidence.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion brought by Robert Evans for disclosure regarding bank accounts of the deceased.

The applicant had made an offer to settle that was not accepted by the respondents.

The court found the applicant was completely successful on the motion and was entitled to partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer, pursuant to Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The respondents were ordered to pay costs totaling $11,737.97.