J. R. Henderson

The applicant and respondent separated after a high-conflict incident.

The applicant sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence of their three children, and child support.

The respondent sought equal parenting time and joint decision-making.

The court found the respondent's aggressive behaviour and inability to communicate effectively precluded joint decision-making and equal parenting time.

The court ordered that the children primarily reside with the applicant, granted the applicant sole decision-making responsibility, and ordered the respondent to pay retroactive and ongoing child support.

The moving party brought a motion to extend the limitation period under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act to permit him to bring a claim for an equalization payment under s. 5.

The parties separated in 2014, and the limitation period expired by May 2021.

The court found that the moving party had apparent grounds for relief, the delay was incurred in good faith as he had made regular payments toward the carrying costs of the matrimonial home and the parties had deferred discussions about a buyout, and there was no substantial prejudice to the responding party.

The motion was granted and the limitation period was extended.

The defendant was charged with two counts of first-degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder, following a shooting that killed two victims.

The Crown alleged the defendant hired a contract killer to murder the victims' son, a drug dealer who worked for the defendant.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of the admitted killer, an unsavoury witness who had entered a plea deal.

The court applied the Vetrovec warning and found the witness's testimony required independent corroboration.

Concluding that the circumstantial evidence (cell phone records and GPS data) was weak and supported multiple innocent inferences, the court found the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant.

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder for beating his wife to death with a metal mallet.

The court considered the brutal nature of the offence and the fact that the victim was his intimate partner and caregiver as significant aggravating factors.

The offender's major depressive disorder with psychotic features, his lack of prior criminal record, and his admissions to police were considered mitigating factors.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 14 years.

The City of Hamilton successfully moved to dismiss an application challenging its mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy on the basis of mootness, after the City suspended the policy.

Both parties sought costs.

The court found that the applicants achieved significant success by prompting the policy's suspension and were entitled to partial indemnity costs up to that date.

The City was entitled to partial indemnity costs for its successful motion to dismiss.

The court set off the respective costs entitlements and ordered that no costs be paid by either party.

The defendant was charged with first-degree murder for the blunt force killing of his wife.

He admitted to causing her death but raised the defence of not criminally responsible (NCR) under s. 16(1) of the Criminal Code, arguing that his major depressive disorder with psychotic features rendered him incapable of knowing his actions were morally wrong.

The court rejected the NCR defence, finding that despite his false belief that his wife intended to put him in a home, he retained the capacity to make a rational choice and knew his actions were wrong.

The court inferred the requisite intent for murder from the circumstantial evidence and found the defendant guilty of second-degree murder.

The defendant brought an unsuccessful motion for summary dismissal of the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff sought costs of $28,000, while the defendant argued for costs in the cause or fixed at $5,000.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity scale, noting the motion was important but relatively uncomplicated.

Costs were fixed at $13,560 inclusive of HST.

The applicants, non-unionized employees of the City of Hamilton, challenged the termination provisions of the City's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy under the Charter.

After the application was commenced, the City suspended the termination provisions indefinitely and brought a motion to dismiss the application for mootness.

The court granted the motion, finding no live controversy existed because the provisions were suspended and no applicants had suffered adverse consequences.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case, citing judicial economy and the hypothetical nature of any ruling on a suspended policy.

The defendant employer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal claim.

The defendant argued the claim was based solely on the Employment Standards Act and that the plaintiff sued prematurely before the 35-week temporary layoff period expired.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the statement of claim was broad enough to encompass common law claims, including allegations of deceit regarding the layoff notice, and that genuine issues of credibility required a trial.

The parties brought cross-motions for temporary orders regarding parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and daycare for their three-year-old child.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making responsibility due to the respondent's poor communication and controlling behaviour.

The court maintained the status quo for parenting time, finding no compelling reason to change it on a temporary basis, but ordered the respondent not to consume alcohol or drugs during his parenting time.

The child was ordered to remain in full-time daycare, with an exception allowing the respondent to care for the child on his parenting days if he is not working.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion to compel the respondent to cooperate in filing corporate tax returns pursuant to a 2019 order, and the dismissal of the respondent's cross-motions.

The court found the applicant's motion was necessary due to the respondent's delays and failure to clarify her position.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $8,475 inclusive of HST.

The plaintiff pharmacy sued the defendant retirement residence for breach of contract, alleging the defendant failed to properly deliver a notice of non-renewal to terminate their pharmacy services agreement.

The trial was bifurcated to determine the sole issue of liability: whether the defendant's representative hand delivered the notice to the plaintiff's president on June 16, 2020.

After assessing the credibility of the conflicting witness testimony, the court found on a balance of probabilities that the notice was hand delivered.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed.

The applicants sought a declaration that they were permitted to install solar panels on their home's roof despite a restrictive covenant requiring the developer's approval for any 'structures'.

The developer had demanded the removal of the partially installed solar panels.

The court found that while solar panels do constitute a 'structure' under the covenant, the covenant itself was unenforceable for uncertainty.

The provision gave the developer unfettered discretion to approve or reject structures without setting out any objective criteria.

Consequently, the applicants did not require the developer's approval to proceed with the installation.

The plaintiff franchisee brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant franchisor from acting on a Notice of Expiration of a restaurant franchise agreement.

The franchise agreement explicitly stated there was no right to renew after the initial 10-year term.

The plaintiff argued it was entitled to an extension based on alleged oral representations and breaches of the duty of fair dealing under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The court found the requested relief was a mandatory injunction requiring a strong prima facie case.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff's case was weak, any potential remedy would likely be in damages rather than an order compelling renewal, and the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm.

The parties, who are equal shareholders in a corporation, brought cross-motions regarding the winding up of the business following their divorce.

The applicant sought an order compelling the respondent to sign draft corporate tax returns, while the respondent sought further financial disclosure and the release of trust funds to pay her accountant.

The court ordered the applicant's accountant to answer three outstanding questions, after which the respondent must sign the tax returns unless specifically instructed otherwise by her accountant.

The respondent's request for the release of trust funds was dismissed.

The defendant, charged with fraudulent personation following data breaches at his former employer, brought an application alleging a breach of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The court calculated the total delay from the date the information was sworn and deducted periods of defence delay, including time spent pursuing resolution discussions and delays in obtaining instructions.

The net delay was found to be 28 months and 6 days, which is below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for superior courts.

The defendant failed to establish that the delay was unreasonable, and the application was dismissed.

The court also noted in obiter that the COVID-19 pandemic would constitute exceptional circumstances justifying delay.

The applicant and respondent both brought motions to change existing child support and custody orders.

The applicant sought a retroactive increase in child support, alleging the respondent earned significantly more than his declared income through cash jobs.

The respondent sought a decrease in support, a transfer of custody for one child, and termination of support for both children.

The court found the respondent was deceitful about his income but lacked reliable evidence to impute a higher amount, maintaining his income at $39,200.

Custody of one child was transferred to the respondent, child support was terminated for both children on agreed dates, and arrears were fixed at $16,162.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder following a fatal shooting in a parking lot outside a nightclub.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of an alleged eyewitness with a criminal lifestyle and a history as a police informant, as well as circumstantial evidence of post-offence conduct.

The court found the key eyewitness's testimony to be highly unreliable due to numerous internal and external inconsistencies, and concluded that the accused's post-offence conduct did not support an inference of guilt.

Applying the W.(D) test, the court held that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the shooter, resulting in an acquittal.

The applicant, convicted of first-degree murder for orchestrating the contract killing of her mother's common-law partner, applied for a reduction in her 25-year parole ineligibility period under the 'faint hope' clause.

The court conducted a judicial screening to determine if there was a reasonable prospect of success before a jury.

While acknowledging the applicant's good institutional conduct and personal progress, the court found she had not expressed true remorse or accepted full responsibility for her central role in planning the murder.

The application was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order placing the child in extended care for the purpose of adoption.

The biological parents opposed the application, seeking to have the child placed in their care.

The court found the child in need of protection due to concerns regarding the parents' intellectual and emotional deficits, domestic conflict, and inability to maintain a safe home environment.

The court ordered the child placed in the extended care of the Society for adoption, but granted the parents access, finding that continued contact was in the child's best interests.