J. Paul R. Howard

The court fixed costs following a successful motion by Southside Construction and the Architects to stay the City of Windsor's claims due to abuse of process.

The City had failed to immediately disclose complete terms of settlement agreements with third-party subtrades, which fundamentally altered the litigation landscape.

The court found the City's conduct egregious and awarded substantial indemnity costs to Southside and the Architects, emphasizing that such an elevated scale was appropriate to express judicial disapproval and deter similar future behaviour, though not egregious enough for full indemnity costs.

The applicant father sought a step-down plan for unsupervised parenting time with his son, Jaxson, following allegations of past inappropriate conduct with another minor and his placement on the Child Abuse Register.

The respondent mother opposed, seeking fully supervised access at a centre or no access, and sole decision-making responsibility.

The court, prioritizing the child's best interests and relying on expert evidence, found the father did not pose a sexual risk to his son.

The court ordered a modified step-down plan for parenting time, contingent on the father's continued counselling, and granted the mother primary residency, deferring the decision-making responsibility issue to trial.

This case concerned a contract dispute between Harris Brothers Ltd. (plaintiff) and Mud Creek Capital Corp. (defendant) regarding levelling and regrading work for wind turbine towers.

The plaintiff claimed over $130,000 based on an alleged "open" time and materials contract, while the defendant argued the contract was for approximately $10,000 or $40,000.

The court found that the binding contract was a $40,000 purchase order, which required written agreement for any additional work.

Due to the plaintiff's failure to obtain such written consent for work exceeding the $40,000 cap, the court limited the plaintiff's recovery to the contract price.

Claims for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment were dismissed as a binding contract existed.

The defendant's counterclaim for costs to complete the work was also dismissed because they had prohibited the plaintiff from finishing the job.

Claims against the personal defendants were dismissed due to lack of evidence of personal liability.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent subcontractor $14,300 for extra work performed on a construction project.

The trial judge found that the developer and appellant had insisted on a material change in methodology that required the respondent to use more expensive motorized buggies instead of cement trucks to protect the substrate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, his conclusion that there was an implied agreement to pay for the extras, or his assessment of damages.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2014 final consent order regarding child support and section 7 expenses.

She sought to set aside the fixed child support provisions, arguing she did not understand the settlement due to cognitive distress and financial pressure.

The court dismissed her claims, finding her evidence not credible and upholding the settlement agreement.

The court also imputed an annual income of $90,000 to the applicant for 2017 and 2018 due to intentional under-employment, and ordered her to pay her 50 percent share of section 7 expenses totaling $8,060.82.

The respondent Penelope Provost was successful on a motion to transfer the proceeding from London to Chatham and sought her costs on a substantial or full indemnity basis.

The applicant and other respondents opposed, arguing for no costs or costs in the cause due to divided success and reasonable conduct.

The court found no reprehensible conduct to justify an elevated scale and fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis at $2,500, payable in the cause by the applicant and one respondent jointly and severally.

The City of Windsor entered into confidential settlement agreements with eight third-party subcontractors, which included indemnities and assumption of liabilities, fundamentally altering the litigation landscape.

The City failed to immediately and fully disclose these agreements to the general contractor (Southside Construction) and the architects, despite multiple opportunities and court orders.

The court found this non-disclosure constituted an abuse of process, as it created a circularity in claims and prejudiced the non-settling parties by forcing them to incur significant costs to uncover the true nature of the agreements.

The respondent brought a motion to transfer the applicant's estate litigation proceeding from London to Chatham.

The court applied the holistic approach under Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the respondent established Chatham was a significantly better venue, given that all parties and the subject property were located in Chatham-Kent, and related proceedings were already commenced there.

The motion to transfer was granted.

The respondent's additional requests to appoint a case management judge and direct a case conference were adjourned as premature pending a scheduled consolidation motion.

Following a successful motion by the respondent husband to vary and reduce his spousal support obligations, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The court found the respondent husband was the successful party and presumptively entitled to costs.

However, the court reduced his costs award because he engaged in unreasonable 'self-help' behaviour by unilaterally terminating all spousal support payments while his motion was pending.

The court awarded the respondent husband costs of $11,653.69 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendant brought a motion to transfer the proceeding from the Toronto Region to the Southwest Region (Windsor).

The action arose from a failed real estate transaction for a property located in Windsor.

The plaintiff, who resides in Toronto, commenced the action in Toronto seeking specific performance or damages.

Applying the holistic approach under Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that the plaintiff's choice of venue was reasonable and the defendant failed to establish that Windsor would be a significantly better venue.

The motion to transfer was dismissed.

The Crown applied for a restraining order under s. 9 of the Reopening Ontario Act to prevent the respondents from contravening COVID-19 public health restrictions at three churches.

The court found that the Crown established clear and repeated breaches of capacity limits, masking, and physical distancing requirements.

The respondents failed to establish any exceptional circumstances, such as a pre-existing Charter right or evidence that the unlawful conduct would cease.

The application was allowed and the restraining order was issued.

The respondent husband brought a motion to vary an interim spousal support order that required him to pay $11,000 per month.

He argued that his forced retirement, resulting from the closure of his tool and die business, constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court found the retirement was reasonable and not voluntary, as the business lost its major client.

The court declined to impute income to the wife at the interim stage and determined the husband's income based on the corporate income available to him.

The interim spousal support was reduced to $2,400 per month.

The applicant sought to vary spousal support payable under a 2012 separation agreement, claiming retroactive and prospective increases due to the respondent's significantly higher post-separation income earned in the United States.

The court found a material change in circumstances and increased prospective spousal support to $10,500 CAD per month, calculating the non-resident respondent's income as if he were a Canadian resident.

The court awarded retroactive support back to January 2016, the date of effective notice, but declined to award support back to the date of separation, finding no wrongful conduct by the respondent.

The applicant's claim for security for support was dismissed.

The plaintiff moved for default judgment against the defendant landlord for damages arising from a slip and fall on black ice in a parking lot.

The defendant was noted in default and deemed to admit liability.

The court assessed general damages at $80,000 for knee injuries requiring surgery.

The court also awarded damages for loss of income, but deducted sickness absence benefits received by the plaintiff under his collective agreement, finding the private insurance exception to the rule against double recovery did not apply because the plaintiff failed to prove he contributed to the benefits.

Sentencing for sexual interference and two counts of invitation to sexual touching arising from three sexual encounters between an adult business owner and a 13-year-old complainant.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence were the primary sentencing objectives under the Criminal Code and applied the Supreme Court's guidance in Friesen to reject a low reformatory sentence.

Significant aggravating factors included the complainant's age, the profound age difference, repeated offences over several weeks, the high degree of bodily violation, and the offender's criminal record and poor compliance history.

The court imposed a global penitentiary sentence of 4 years and 10 months, with concurrent terms on the invitation counts, and made DNA, SOIRA, no-contact, and weapons prohibition orders, but declined a s. 161 order.

The offender, a 27-year-old man with intellectual delays and a traumatic upbringing, was found guilty of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against his girlfriend's 8-year-old daughter, who had special needs.

Applying the Kienapple principle, the court entered convictions only for sexual interference.

Emphasizing the Supreme Court's direction in Friesen that sentences for sexual offences against children must prioritize denunciation and deterrence, the court sentenced the offender to 4 years' imprisonment and imposed various ancillary orders, including a 10-year s. 161 prohibition order.

The appellants appealed three orders (Unsafe Building Order, Property Standards Order, and Occupancy Order) issued by a municipal building inspector regarding a residential property with severe structural deficiencies.

The court found the appeals of the Unsafe Building Order and Property Standards Order were out of time and declined to grant an extension, applying the Mauldin test.

The appeal of the Occupancy Order was deemed moot because the building was already vacant and subject to demolition under the other final orders.

The appellants' argument that the orders should be nullified due to an alleged warrantless inspection was rejected on both factual and legal grounds.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent municipality.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after a five-and-a-half-year marriage with three children.

The mother sought a defined parenting schedule and retroactive child support, while the father sought a 50-50 shared parenting arrangement.

The court found that a 50-50 shared parenting schedule was not in the children's best interests as they had thrived in the primary care of their mother, but modified the father's parenting time to be more balanced.

The court dismissed the mother's claim for retroactive child support, finding she had known the father received free room and board but unreasonably delayed in seeking increased support.

The parties engaged in high-conflict family litigation over custody and access of their two young children.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and restricted access without overnights, while the respondent father sought joint custody and regular overnight access.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother due to the parties' inability to communicate cooperatively, but granted the father's request for overnight access, implementing a gradual transition plan.

The court also excluded surreptitious recordings made by the mother, declined to include the father's RRSP withdrawals in his income for child support, and dismissed the mother's motion to adduce fresh post-trial evidence.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a young girl with disabilities.

The Crown relied on the complainant's video-taped statements, DNA evidence found on a used condom, and the accused's inculpatory statements to police.

The accused recanted his confession at trial, claiming it was false and induced by his nonverbal learning disability.

The court rejected the false confession claim, found the DNA evidence and confession corroborated the complainant's statements, and found the accused guilty of the sexual offences.