Joseph R. Henderson

The plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their statement of claim and to add their daughter and son-in-law (the "proposed plaintiffs") as party plaintiffs, to whom they had transferred the property at issue.

The defendants opposed the addition of the new parties and related amendments.

The court dismissed the request to add the proposed plaintiffs, finding no evidence of an assignment of the cause of action and that they were not necessary parties under Rule 5.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted leave for other requested amendments to the statement of claim.

Costs were ordered against the plaintiffs.

The Children's Aid Society of the Niagara Region brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that the child, N.E.H., was in need of protection and a final order for extended care.

The mother, diagnosed with FASD and intellectual deficits, contested this, arguing for genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly regarding the appropriate disposition and the availability of parental supports.

The court made preliminary findings but dismissed the Society's motion for summary judgment, finding that a fair and just determination on the merits required a full trial due to unresolved issues concerning the mother's capacity with supports, the reliability of certain hearsay evidence, and the need for viva voce testimony from key witnesses.

The plaintiff, Carmen Ranger, brought an action under the Occupiers' Liability Act for damages sustained from a slip and fall on ice in a pedestrian crosswalk at a shopping mall.

The defendants, including the property owner, property manager (Triovest), and snow removal contractor (Pioneer), were found collectively liable.

The court found that Triovest failed to implement a reasonable winter maintenance system, specifically lacking clear provisions for inspection, monitoring, and response to freezing rain, and failing to prioritize high-traffic areas like the crosswalk.

Pioneer also failed its implied duty to inspect and monitor the property and respond to icy conditions.

The court rejected the defendants' claim of contributory negligence by the plaintiff, finding her actions reasonable.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendants to fulfill discovery undertakings and answer refused questions.

The court ruled that leave under Rule 48.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was not required for motions related to undertakings or refusals, interpreting Rule 48.04(2)(b)(iii) as an exception.

The court ordered the defendants to provide contact information for former employees, produce the "I Make It Right" guidelines, and the complete RBC Claims Manual.

It denied the request for information on the number of drug testing requests on other files due to proportionality concerns.

The court ordered a further and better answer regarding the generation of a payment chart.

It also addressed the discoverability of RBC's profitability, declining to compel detailed financial information at this stage, consistent with the principles against premature disclosure before liability is established in bad faith claims.

The applicants (maternal grandparents) sought custody of their grandson, Grayson, from his mother (respondent).

The court assessed the best interests of the child, considering factors such as stability, the child's views and preferences, the caregivers' abilities, and exposure to family violence.

The court found that the child's primary residence should remain with the grandfather due to the mother's transient lifestyle, inconsistent care, and exposure of the child to domestic conflict.

Sole decision-making responsibility was granted to the grandfather, with a requirement to consult the mother.

Parenting time for the mother was ordered to commence via videoconference, with reconciliation counselling mandated before in-person visits.

The request for child support from the mother was dismissed due to her current stay-at-home status and pregnancy.

The defendants, Recovery Science Corporation (RSC) and Stephen Tan, brought a motion for summary dismissal of the plaintiff's negligence claim, arguing that a signed Liability Waiver released them from liability.

The plaintiff alleged faulty equipment, inadequate investigation, careless removal of a GPS ankle bracelet, and misleading information provided to police, leading to his re-arrest for breach of recognizance.

The court found the Waiver valid and binding but determined that significant factual issues remained regarding the cause of damage to the ankle bracelet and whether the defendants provided forthright information to police.

The court concluded that these issues, including credibility assessments and expert report scrutiny, required a trial and could not be fairly resolved on a summary judgment motion.

The defendants' motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

This case involved cross-motions to change a 2015 final order concerning the primary residence, decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and child support for the parties' daughter.

The daughter had been living with the applicant father since March 2020 due to the respondent mother's mental health breakdown.

The applicant sought sole decision-making and primary residence, while the respondent sought the daughter's return to her care.

The court prioritized the child's best interests, giving significant weight to her strong views and preferences to remain with her father due to anxiety related to past events and the mother's ongoing mental health issues.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, ordered supervised parenting time for the respondent (initially institutional, then with the maternal grandmother), and terminated the applicant's child support obligation as of March 2020.

The respondent's request for child support from the applicant was denied due to her limited income and lack of evidence for imputing income.

The applicant brought two motions for interlocutory relief seeking further financial disclosure, prospective and retroactive child support, s.7 expenses, and suspension of the respondent's parenting time.

The court ordered the respondent to provide forthwith the requested financial disclosure and to pay prospective child support based on an imputed income of $94,123.

Retroactive child support and s.7 expenses were deferred to trial due to unresolved factual issues.

The respondent's parenting time was reinstated on a supervised basis, with existing conditions regarding alcohol consumption maintained.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, reduced from the amount requested.

This decision addresses the costs of three motions heard on December 6, 2022, where the applicant was entirely successful.

The court dismissed two contempt motions brought by the respondent and granted the applicant's motion for disclosure.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs, while the respondent requested costs in his favour or a reduction/deferral of the applicant's claim.

The court found the applicant presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, rejecting the respondent's arguments as attempts to relitigate.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs, finding the respondent's conduct not egregious enough, and determined that the offers to settle did not engage the rules for increased costs.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs, fixed at $9,040, payable by the respondent within 90 days.

The Seafarers’ International Union of Canada (SIU) commenced a defamation action against the defendant for publishing false statements on social media regarding a COVID-19 vaccination survey.

The defendant failed to deliver a statement of defence and was noted in default.

The court held an uncontested hearing for the assessment of damages, granting mandatory and permanent injunctions against the defendant.

The court awarded the SIU general damages of $50,000 and punitive damages of $25,000, along with substantial indemnity costs of $17,175, finding the defendant's conduct egregious and unapologetic.

The decision clarifies the assessment of damages for corporate plaintiffs in defamation cases, distinguishing them from individual plaintiffs regarding mental distress and the scale of damages without proven economic loss.

The defendant Eldon Lindbergh Hunt brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff, a mortgagee, alleged Hunt, as lawyer for co-defendant Albert Paul Mifsud, improperly registered a caution against a property, preventing its sale and causing damages.

The court found the claim deficient on three grounds: the caution was registered after the alleged closing date, a lawyer acting qua solicitor is not liable under s.132 of the Land Titles Act, and the intentional interference with contractual relations tort was not properly pleaded.

The motion to strike the claims against Hunt was granted, but the plaintiff was given leave to amend the statement of claim to potentially plead a common law tort.

The respondent brought a motion seeking a declaration that the applicant was in contempt of court for breaching a prior order.

The order required the applicant to regularly update the respondent on their child's activities and to remove all references to the respondent from her social media accounts and abstain from further references.

The court dismissed the allegation regarding updates on the child's counselling and psychiatrist, finding insufficient evidence of deliberate breach.

However, the court found the applicant in contempt for failing to remove and continuing to post videos that indirectly referenced the respondent on social media, interpreting "reference" broadly to include content identifiable by those acquainted with the parties.

The applicant's credibility was found to be very poor.

A hearing for sanction and costs was scheduled.

The defendant brought two motions in anticipation of trial: one to declare the plaintiff's documentary evidence inadmissible hearsay, and another to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for general damages and healthcare expenses due to failure to meet the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The court adjourned the hearsay motion to the trial judge, deeming it premature for a blanket ruling.

However, the court granted the motion to dismiss the damages and healthcare claims, as the self-represented plaintiff failed to adduce the required medical evidence from a physician to prove the injuries met the statutory threshold, as mandated by O. Reg 381/03.

This costs endorsement followed motions heard over two days in January 2022, where the applicant sought substantial indemnity costs and the respondent sought no costs.

The court found that both parties had divided success across the 11 issues raised in the underlying motions, which included parenting, support, income imputation, partition and sale, and disclosure.

Neither party's offers to settle engaged Rule 18(14) nor significantly influenced the costs decision under Rule 24.

Given the fairly evenly divided success, the court determined it was fair and reasonable for each party to bear their own costs, resulting in no costs order.

This endorsement addresses a request for costs following two motions heard together.

The respondent, who was deemed the overall successful party on the motions (one motion dismissed for the applicant, one granted for the respondent), sought substantial indemnity costs.

However, the court exercised its broad discretion, considering the applicant's partial success on an earlier related motion and, significantly, the respondent's improper conduct (parental alienation) which motivated the applicant's motion.

The court found that the respondent's conduct should not be rewarded with costs and that her own motion for an accounting was not strictly necessary.

Consequently, the court ordered that both parties bear their own costs.

The Corporation of the Town of Lincoln applied for declarations and a permanent injunction against multiple respondents for violating a municipal bylaw concerning fill importation and site alteration.

The respondents had contravened permit conditions, breached a stop work order, and continued illegal dumping.

While the Shire respondents conceded liability for the declarations and injunction, they disputed the scale and quantum of costs.

The Cascio respondents did not appear.

The court granted the declarations and permanent injunction, finding clear bylaw breaches and no exceptional circumstances to refuse the injunction.

The Town was awarded partial indemnity costs of $54,898, with responsibility apportioned 25% to the Shire respondents and 75% to the Cascio respondents, primarily due to the Cascio respondents' profit motive and failure to cooperate in shortening the proceedings.

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg.

The court found the trial judge erred in applying the Villaroman analysis for circumstantial evidence by failing to consider plausible innocent explanations, such as inclement weather and the appellant's accent.

The court also found issues with the trial judge's s.24(2) Charter analysis regarding a "hold off" breach of the right to counsel, making it difficult to understand the conclusions on the first two prongs of the Grant test.

The appeal was allowed, convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered for both charges.

This decision addresses interlocutory motions concerning parenting time, decision-making responsibility, child and spousal support, property division (specifically partition and sale of a jointly owned property), and disclosure.

The court declined to change the temporary parenting order or the children's school, maintaining the status quo.

Joint decision-making was ordered, and a mutual alcohol prohibition during parenting time was imposed.

The court imputed income to both parties for support purposes, using the applicant's actual income and the respondent's income as determined by his expert.

Child and spousal support were ordered.

The applicant's request for partition and sale of a jointly owned property was dismissed, as it would prejudice the respondent's constructive trust claim, which was deemed a genuine issue for trial.

Further disclosure orders were made regarding the respondent's financial records and property appraisals.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered a provisional order from British Columbia to vary a spousal support order.

The petitioner sought to terminate spousal support and cancel arrears due to retirement and reduced income.

The respondent agreed to termination from a later date but disputed the cancellation of all arrears.

The court found material changes in circumstances for both parties (retirement, increased income for respondent).

The court varied the original order, reducing spousal support from August 1, 2016, and terminating it as of April 2, 2019, and left the precise calculation of arrears to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program based on the new support amounts.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's breach of contract claim after a liability trial, the defendant, Revera Inc., sought partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff acknowledged entitlement to costs but disputed the amount.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assessed the reasonableness of the claimed costs, noting that a costs award is not a simple mathematical calculation.

The judge found the time docketed by the defendant's counsel and the extent of senior counsel involvement to be excessive for the simplicity of the factual dispute, despite the significant amount in issue ($1.4 million).

The court awarded partial indemnity costs significantly lower than requested, emphasizing that the unsuccessful party should not bear the cost of "overpreparation" or unnecessary senior counsel involvement.