John M. Johnston

The applicant brought a motion to confirm the terms of a final order arising from handwritten Minutes of Settlement reached on the first day of a scheduled family law trial.

The parties disagreed on the interpretation and wording of several provisions relating to support, corporate liabilities, parenting arrangements, insurance obligations, and arrears.

The court analyzed the handwritten Minutes of Settlement and competing draft orders filed by the parties to determine the parties’ true agreement.

The court largely adopted the respondent’s draft wording for several provisions where it clarified procedural or operational details, but otherwise enforced the original handwritten terms.

The court also ordered the applicant to pay $12,000 based on the parties’ shared assumption during negotiations that such payment had been made.

The father brought a motion for contempt alleging the mother breached a divorce order requiring the parties’ children to reside on an alternating weekly basis with each parent.

The mother brought a motion to change the custody provisions, asserting the shared parenting arrangement was no longer workable and that the children experienced stress and conflict under the schedule.

The court held that contempt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence did not show the mother intentionally breached the order; the older child had independently refused to continue the arrangement.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the children’s consistent preferences and the ongoing parental conflict.

The order was varied to maintain joint custody with primary residence with the mother and flexible access to the father consistent with the children’s wishes.

The moving party father brought a motion to change prior custody, access, and support orders, seeking joint custody, increased parenting time, termination of spousal support as of a prior review date, and a reduction in child support based on alleged decreased income.

The court held that the father failed to establish a material change in circumstances required to vary custody under the governing legal test.

Sole custody with the mother remained in place, though access was expanded to provide the father with additional parenting time and shared holidays.

The court also determined there was no material change justifying reduction of the father's imputed income or child support obligations, and confirmed that spousal support properly continued until the youngest child attended school full‑time.

Arrears were maintained and the Family Responsibility Office was directed to calculate the outstanding amount.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the claim against an individual insurance broker employee on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff alleged a longstanding relationship with the broker spanning 11 years, with annual consultations and reliance on the broker as its agent in obtaining and renewing insurance coverage.

The moving parties argued that the broker owed no individual duty of care because he acted within the scope of his employment and any liability would be vicarious.

The court held that Canadian negligence law does not impose a blanket rule preventing employees from owing duties of care to customers of their employer and that such questions depend on the specific factual circumstances.

Given the pleaded longstanding advisory relationship, the claim against the broker had a reasonable prospect of success and could not be struck at the pleadings stage.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their amended Statement of Claim to increase damages and extend the time period over which the defendants allegedly removed and converted sand from the plaintiffs’ property.

The defendant contractor opposed the amendment, arguing that claims relating to sand removal prior to 2007 were statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that whether the claims were discoverable earlier was a factual issue unsuitable for determination on a motion.

Because the limitation issue was disputed and the amendments did not introduce a new tort, the court held that Rule 26.01 required the amendment to be permitted absent non-compensable prejudice.

The motion to amend was therefore granted, with procedural directions for further discoveries and expert reports.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order requiring production of numerous documents relating to police conduct during a blockade and the Crown’s duty to consult with Indigenous peoples before granting mining rights.

The moving parties argued the motion judge failed to give adequate reasons, misapplied relevance and proportionality principles under the Rules of Civil Procedure, and improperly assumed possession of certain documents.

The court held that the motion judge provided sufficient reasons and properly applied the relevance and proportionality requirements for documentary production.

The requested materials, including police notes and records related to consultation obligations, were highly relevant to claims involving access to property and alleged Crown negligence.

The defendants failed to establish good reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and leave to appeal was refused.