J. Paul R. Howard

The case involved competing parenting motions, initiated by the respondent mother's motion to change a final order, following the applicant father's brief psychotic episode and hospitalization.

The primary issue was the disclosure of the father's medical records.

The court ordered the disclosure of hospital records from his recent hospitalization, subject to strict confidentiality restrictions, but dismissed the request for his treating psychologist's clinical notes and records, deeming them overly intrusive and not proportional given the availability of primary hospital records.

Interim supervised parenting time arrangements were also ordered.

A proposed intervenor, a former lawyer for the plaintiffs, sought leave to intervene in a motion concerning the interpretation of a settlement agreement.

The intervenor argued he might be adversely affected by the outcome due to a potential professional negligence claim.

The court found that while the intervenor met the "adversely affected" criterion under Rule 13.01(1)(b), his intervention was not warranted.

The court determined that the proposed evidence was subject to solicitor-client and settlement privilege, which had not been waived, thus preventing a useful contribution.

Furthermore, the intervention would cause undue delay and prejudice to the existing parties, particularly the minor plaintiffs, in a private dispute.

The motion for intervention was dismissed.

The Crown brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence action.

The plaintiffs, hog farmers, alleged the Crown's 2007-2008 financial assistance program was negligently designed because it used outdated 2000-2004 sales data, resulting in insufficient payments.

The central issues were whether the program's design decision was a policy or operational decision (policy decisions are immune from negligence liability) and whether the claim was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

The court found the design decision was a core policy decision, immune from liability, and alternatively, that the plaintiffs' claim was statute-barred as they had sufficient knowledge of their claim in 2008, not 2014 as they argued.

The Crown's motion for summary dismissal was allowed without costs.

This judgment addresses the entitlement, quantum, and duration of spousal support, calculation of retroactive support, and child support following a divorce.

The court found the applicant wife entitled to non-compensatory spousal support due to income disparity, but not a strong compensatory claim.

Spousal support was set at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and ordered to terminate on September 30, 2024, considering the applicant's re-partnering and efforts towards self-sufficiency.

Retroactive child and spousal support were fixed, with a tax adjustment applied to the lump-sum spousal support.

Despite the respondent husband being the more successful party on the merits, no costs were awarded due to his deliberate non-compliance with an interim support order.

The plaintiffs, Vincent and Rosemary Tookenay, brought a motion to extend the time for service of their statement of claim in a medical malpractice action against the Estate of Dr. Michael O’Mahony and others, and to validate irregular service.

The statement of claim was issued in April 2021 but not properly served until January 2023, well beyond the six-month deadline.

The plaintiffs attributed the delay to a "miscommunication" within their lawyers' office.

The defendant Estate opposed the motion, arguing significant and uncompensable prejudice due to the unavailability of two key witnesses: Dr. O’Mahony, who suffered severe cognitive decline and later passed away, and nurse practitioner Melissa Georgiou, who died of cancer.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding an unexplained one-month delay after the plaintiffs' lawyers realized the claim had not been served, and actual prejudice to the defendant Estate due to the loss of crucial witness testimony.

The accused, M.T, was charged with sexual interference, sexual exploitation, and sexual assault involving his step-daughter, H.H. The Crown dismissed the sexual exploitation charge.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the accused, applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.) and considering the evidence of children and delayed reporting.

The court found the complainant credible and the accused not credible due to inconsistencies and strategic answers.

M.T was found guilty of sexual interference and sexual assault.

This case involves competing parenting motions concerning the relocation of the parties' two-year-old child with special needs.

The respondent mother unilaterally relocated with the child from Essex County to Burlington.

The applicant father sought the child's return, while the respondent mother sought ex post facto court authorization for the relocation.

The court, applying the best interests of the child framework under the Divorce Act, found the mother to be the primary caregiver and her reasons for relocation, including lack of support in Essex County and better access to special needs services in Burlington, to be valid and reasonable.

The court authorized the relocation and maintained the father's alternate weekend parenting time, with exchanges at a neutral halfway point.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel representatives of the Yamaha defendants to re-attend examinations for discovery to answer questions regarding their investigation of a boating accident.

The defendants had refused the questions, asserting litigation and solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that the dominant purpose of the defendants' investigation was in anticipation of litigation, which was reasonably anticipated shortly after the accident.

The motion was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay costs of $7,500.

The plaintiff's action for breach of a research agreement was dismissed at trial, and the defendant university's counterclaim was allowed.

The defendant sought its costs of the proceeding on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing that the plaintiff made unfounded allegations of fraud and deceit against the university and its personnel.

The court agreed, finding that the plaintiff's principal directed the litigation and used the court process to advance baseless and egregious allegations, constituting an abuse of process.

The court awarded the defendant $640,589.62 in substantial indemnity costs and held the plaintiff's principal personally liable for $150,000 of that amount as a non-party.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring it a successor employer bound by a collective agreement after taking over a hospital shuttle bus contract.

The applicant argued the Board unreasonably expanded the definition of 'building service provider' and 'servicing the premises' under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's interpretation of its home statute was reasonable, supported by the evidence, and consistent with its prior jurisprudence.

The Toronto Star requested records from the LCBO regarding the number of shoplifting incidents at its stores.

The LCBO denied the request under various FIPPA exemptions, arguing disclosure would endanger safety, facilitate crime, and harm economic interests.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered disclosure.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court (majority) set aside the IPC's order, finding the adjudicator misapplied the standard of proof, misapprehended evidence regarding the risk of targeted thefts, and provided inadequate reasons.

The Director of Employment Standards sought judicial review of Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions regarding the calculation of overtime pay for commissioned salespersons under the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's interpretation that the 'regular rate' for calculating overtime is based only on commissions earned during non-overtime hours.

However, the Court found the Board erred in allowing the employer to reconcile weeks where it paid more than the statutory minimum for overtime against weeks where it underpaid.

The application was allowed in part and remitted to the Board for recalculation.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a case conference order dated November 21, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay $5,000 in costs to the respondent.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 16, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the respondents to pay the moving party agreed costs of $5,000.

The applicant sought judicial review of a WSIAT decision denying his claim for chronic or traumatic mental stress benefits.

The WSIAT had found that the applicant's psychological condition was primarily caused by his job reclassification and resulting wage impact, which are employer decisions excluded from compensation under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the WSIAT's decision reasonable and supported by the medical evidence.

The landlords appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing their application for termination and compensation for water damage to the rental unit's flooring.

The Board had found that while the tenant's mopping caused the damage, it was not reasonably foreseeable and therefore not negligent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the landlords' arguments challenged findings of fact and mixed fact and law, which are not appealable under section 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his claim for income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the Adjudicator breached procedural fairness and erred in law by failing to consider financial documents contained in his voluminous document brief.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness or error of law, as the appellant had failed to enter the documents into evidence despite multiple directions and opportunities from the Adjudicator to do so.

The court also upheld the denial of an award for unreasonably withheld payments.

The accused challenged a search warrant and sought to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging a s. 8 violation.

The court found the information to obtain (ITO) the search warrant was flawed, containing a false assertion and relying on speculative and stale information, thus rendering the search unlawful and a breach of the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant analysis, the court determined that the seriousness of the state conduct and the significant impact on the accused's privacy interests outweighed society's interest in the admission of reliable evidence.

Consequently, the evidence was excluded, leading to the dismissal of all charges against both accused.

Mark John Ryn was found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to import fentanyl and possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the dangerous nature of fentanyl, the duration of the trafficking enterprise, and the offender's profit motive and manipulation of a vulnerable co-accused.

Mitigating factors included his youth at the time of the offence and lack of a prior criminal record.

The court rejected the defence's request for a conditional sentence, emphasizing the need for general deterrence and denunciation in fentanyl cases and distinguishing Ryn's circumstances from his co-accused due to her guilty plea, cooperation, and victim status.

Ryn was sentenced to a concurrent term of four years imprisonment for each count.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a dismissed motion to change a 2014 final order concerning child support and s. 7 expenses.

The respondent father, as the successful party on the underlying motion, sought costs on a full recovery basis, claiming over $303,000.

The court upheld the presumptive entitlement of the respondent father to costs, finding the applicant mother's challenge to the 2014 settlement to be groundless and unreasonable.

After considering factors such as the parties' behaviour, time spent, and offers to settle (none of which triggered cost consequences), the court fixed the respondent father's costs at $89,896.13, significantly less than claimed, and disallowed certain disbursements.

The costs award was made enforceable as a support order.