J. S. Shin Doi

The defendants brought a motion to discharge the plaintiff's construction lien for pre-publication work and to vacate the remaining lien for post-publication work upon payment into court.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants were precluded by promissory estoppel from relying on the statutory limitation period to perfect the lien, based on a promise to pay made during settlement discussions.

The court found that the pre-publication lien had expired because it was not perfected in time.

The court held that promissory estoppel did not apply because the defendants never promised to waive or not rely on the limitation period.

The motion was granted, the pre-publication lien was discharged, and the post-publication lien was ordered vacated upon payment into court.

The applicant father brought a motion for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, seeking to remain in the home with the parties' special needs daughters.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that an immediate sale would cause undue disruption to the children's educational and daily routines.

The court ordered that the home not be listed for sale until at least the end of the current academic year to serve the best interests of the children.

The applicant sought an ex parte Mareva injunction in a family law proceeding to restrain the respondent from depleting funds unilaterally withdrawn from a jointly held investment account after separation.

The court found the applicant met the five requirements for a Mareva injunction, including a strong prima facie case and a real risk of asset dissipation, and granted an interim order enjoining dealings with the respondent's chequing accounts and ordering disclosure of transactions.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) to prepare a Voice of the Child Report or to represent his two sons, following his motion to change a final consent order regarding custody and parenting time.

The respondent mother opposed on procedural grounds, alleging the father lacked leave and was in contempt of an equalization payment order, and on substantive grounds, arguing another OCL report was not in the children's best interests given a recent assessment and their current well-being.

The court found the father had obtained the necessary leave and was making progress towards complying with the equalization order.

However, the motion for OCL involvement was dismissed, as the court determined it would not be in the children's best interests, emphasizing the importance of minimizing their exposure to ongoing family conflict and disruption.

The applicant father brought a contempt motion against the respondent mother, alleging she breached an access order when their older daughter refused to return to his home after an access visit.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking to travel with the children to the United States for the winter break and to change the children's living arrangements.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the mother did not deliberately or wilfully disobey the order and had exhausted all reasonable recourse to encourage the child to return.

The court granted the mother's cross-motion, permitting the holiday travel and ordering that the older child reside primarily with the mother and the younger child reside primarily with the father, in accordance with the children's expressed wishes and best interests.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the appellant tenant's appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order for rent arrears.

The court found that the tenant's notice of appeal raised only factual issues regarding his personal and financial circumstances, failing to raise a question of law as required by s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court concluded the appeal was devoid of merit, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The motion was granted, the appeal was dismissed, and the automatic stay of eviction was lifted.

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision for lack of jurisdiction.

The appeal, concerning rent arrears and eviction, raised only factual matters, not questions of law as required by the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court found the appeal devoid of merit, frivolous, vexatious, and an an abuse of process, granting the motion, dismissing the appeal, and lifting the automatic stay of the eviction order.