J. Stephen O'Neill

The applicant brought a motion seeking interim child and spousal support and interim disbursements for a business valuation critique in a family law proceeding.

The primary issue was the respondent’s income for temporary support purposes, where the parties proposed significantly different income figures based on competing interpretations of corporate financial information.

The court accepted the respondent’s valuator’s income determination report prepared in conformity with Canadian Institute of Chartered Business Valuators standards and fixed the respondent’s income at $124,567 on an interim basis.

The court held that temporary support motions should avoid forensic accounting analysis where only one expert report is available.

Interim child support, mid-range spousal support, and partial interim disbursements to fund a critique report were ordered.

Following earlier reasons on a motion, the court addressed the issue of costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs based on a bill totalling over $15,000.

The court reviewed the parties’ submissions, deleted certain claimed items not directly related to the motion, and considered the principle that costs should be fair and reasonably expected by the unsuccessful party rather than strictly reflecting actual expenditures.

After comparing both parties’ proposed bills of costs and exercising its discretion, the court fixed a reduced amount.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the moving party in the sum of $10,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The applicant sought an order compelling the respondent to answer questions during an Ontario examination conducted pursuant to a Letter of Request issued by a California court in a civil securities fraud action.

The respondent refused to answer numerous questions, invoking the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution due to concerns that her answers could be used in a potential U.S. criminal investigation.

The court held that evidentiary procedures under a Letter of Request are governed by Canadian law, not foreign constitutional protections.

Concerns regarding the potential use of compelled testimony in U.S. criminal proceedings were matters for the American courts to determine.

The respondent was therefore required to answer the questions notwithstanding the asserted Fifth Amendment privilege.

The applicant brought a motion seeking relief from an earlier court order permitting the municipality to demolish a building if the applicant failed to complete construction by a specified deadline.

The prior order required the building to be ready for final occupancy by August 30, 2012, failing which a stay of demolition would be lifted.

The court found that the applicant had failed to comply with the deadline and had a long history of delays and missed construction timelines despite multiple court-managed extensions.

Applying the doctrines of issue estoppel, collateral attack, and abuse of process, the court held that the prior order should not be revisited.

The motion was dismissed and the earlier demolition-related order was upheld.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment to enforce payment obligations under a promissory note arising from a share purchase agreement and to enforce a personal guarantee.

The defendants argued that the payment schedule was triggered by completion of a later adjustment process relating to the purchase price rather than the original closing date of the transaction.

The court interpreted the promissory note in light of the share purchase agreement and amendment agreement and held that the payment schedule was triggered by the closing date of the share purchase, not the later adjustment process.

The court further held that the individual guarantor was jointly and severally liable under the guarantee and indemnity.

Summary judgment was granted for the outstanding amounts owing under the promissory note and an additional balance relating to a loan payable to the parent company.

Following a prior decision granting declaratory relief for infringement under the Trade-Marks Act and Competition Act, the court addressed whether costs should be awarded before the quantification of damages on a reference.

The respondent argued that costs should be deferred until damages were determined in order to respect the principle of proportionality.

The court held that s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure confer discretion to award costs for a proceeding or a step in a proceeding even before damages are quantified.

Given the applicant’s substantial success on liability and the final nature of the declaratory relief, the court ordered that costs be payable forthwith on a partial indemnity basis, while allowing the respondent to make written submissions on the quantum of costs.

Following a discovery-related motion concerning undertakings and production of Schedule B documents, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized the result of the motion and the parties’ settlement offers.

Although the defendant had agreed to disclose some documents prior to the hearing and had answered undertakings promptly, the court found the plaintiffs were ultimately more successful and had been required to bring the motion.

The court exercised its discretion to fix costs payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs.

Following a prior decision dismissing the action against an insurer defendant, the court addressed costs allocation among the parties.

The plaintiff had added the insurer as a defendant to ensure coverage but offered to release the insurer if other defendants admitted minimal liability.

The remaining defendants refused, and the insurer brought a successful summary judgment motion resulting in dismissal of the claim against it.

Exercising discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court apportioned costs between the plaintiff and the co-defendants, finding that both contributed to the insurer remaining in the action.

Costs of the action and the summary judgment motion were divided proportionally between them.

The moving party sought summary judgment requiring a pension plan administrator to pay her a pre‑retirement death benefit under a federally regulated pension plan following the death of her former spouse.

The claim relied on a separation agreement stating that she would receive survivor benefits from the pension.

The court considered whether s. 25(4) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act permitted assignment of a pre‑retirement death benefit to a former spouse and whether the language of the parties’ separation agreement and related documents constituted an effective assignment.

Although the court held that the statute permits assignment of such benefits, it concluded the wording of the separation agreement and related direction did not clearly and unambiguously effect an assignment.

The statutory priority of the surviving spouse therefore prevailed and the death benefit was payable to the deceased member’s later spouse.

The applicant alleged that the respondent distributed a brochure containing false and misleading statements about the applicant’s water heater rental services.

The court considered whether the brochure breached s. 7(a), s. 22, and s. 53.2 of the Trade-Marks Act and s. 52 of the Competition Act by discrediting a competitor and depreciating the value of goodwill attached to registered trade-marks.

The court found the brochure contained inaccurate and misleading representations and improperly reproduced the applicant’s trade-mark and logo.

The court concluded the respondent’s conduct breached the Trade-Marks Act and the Competition Act.

A declaration of breach was issued, a permanent injunction granted restraining further distribution of the brochure, and a reference ordered to determine damages.

The insurer defendant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim and all crossclaims against it arising from a motor vehicle collision.

The court reviewed discovery transcripts and the duties imposed by the Highway Traffic Act on drivers approaching and turning at an intersection.

Applying the summary judgment principles from Combined Air Mechanical Service Inc v. Flesch, the court concluded that the evidentiary record allowed a full determination without the need for trial.

The evidence established that the turning driver bore at least some responsibility for the collision, defeating the claim against the insurer.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action and crossclaims against the insurer with costs.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking leave to relocate with the parties' two children from Parry Sound to Aurora, to vary the respondent father's access schedule, and for retroactive child support.

The father opposed the relocation, arguing it would further alienate him from the children, particularly the daughter who already refused to see him.

The court applied the best interests of the child test from Gordon v. Goertz.

Despite two Office of the Children's Lawyer reports recommending against the move, the court granted the relocation, finding it would provide the mother with better economic opportunities and would not disrupt the father's existing alternate-weekend access with the son.

The court also ordered the mother to seek treatment to repair the father-daughter relationship and ordered the father to pay retroactive child support.

The defendants brought a motion seeking a stay of a summary judgment proceeding concerning unpaid promissory notes, arguing the dispute must proceed to arbitration under a share purchase agreement.

The court considered whether the dispute fell within arbitration provisions relating to purchase price adjustments and general arbitration clauses.

It held that the contractual adjustment process had already concluded when the parties’ external accountants resolved the working capital dispute.

As no live issue remained for arbitration, and given delay and attornment to the court’s jurisdiction, the court declined to stay the action.

The court confirmed jurisdiction to hear the summary judgment motion regarding the promissory notes.

The accused, a husband and wife, were charged with defrauding Human Resources Development Canada of over $70,000 in Canada Pension Plan disability benefits.

The Crown alleged they failed to report the husband's return to self-employment and subsequent employment after he suffered a catastrophic injury in 1998.

The court found that the wife, who signed the initial application while under severe stress, did not have the requisite intent to commit fraud.

The court also found that the husband, whose business operated at a loss and who had limited understanding of the reporting requirements, lacked the subjective awareness required for the mens rea of fraud.

Both accused were acquitted.

Sentencing decision following convictions for impaired operation causing death and driving while disqualified after a snowmobile collision that resulted in the death of a teenage passenger.

The offender had consumed alcohol, operated the vehicle while prohibited, and lost control on a rural roadway, striking a tree.

The court considered victim impact statements, the offender’s criminal record involving prior alcohol-related driving offences, and a presentence report outlining personal circumstances and alcohol misuse.

While the offender had complied with strict bail conditions for several years and had family responsibilities, the court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence in cases of impaired driving causing death.

A penitentiary sentence was imposed together with a lengthy driving prohibition and a DNA order.

A non-profit organization providing rehabilitation services and limited residential accommodation for individuals with brain injuries sought a declaration that its property was exempt from municipal taxation under the Assessment Act as a 'house of refuge'.

The applicant argued that the entire building qualified because it provided protection, support, and rehabilitation services to vulnerable individuals.

The court applied the primary purpose test and held that a 'house of refuge' within s. 3(1)11 of the Assessment Act refers to a residence where people live.

Because only one floor of the building provided residential accommodation while the majority of the premises was used for rehabilitation and administrative purposes, the property as a whole did not qualify for the exemption.

The application was dismissed, though the residential floor was recognized as exempt from taxation.

The applicant sought enforcement in Ontario of letters rogatory issued by a court in Alabama to compel oral examinations of two Ontario residents for use in a U.S. class action proceeding concerning lender‑placed insurance fees.

The intervener, a defendant in the foreign proceeding, opposed the request on the basis that the proposed evidence would be duplicative, unnecessary, and obtainable elsewhere.

The court considered the statutory framework under the Evidence Act and the Canada Evidence Act, along with the discretionary factors governing enforcement of foreign letters of request.

The court found that the preconditions for enforcement were met and that the witnesses likely possessed relevant and unique firsthand knowledge not otherwise obtainable.

In light of international comity and the relevance of the proposed evidence, the court enforced the letters rogatory and ordered the examinations to proceed.

The defendants brought a motion seeking a second instalment of security for costs totaling approximately $894,960 in complex civil litigation involving a $100 million claim.

The court considered the plaintiffs’ financial circumstances, including the corporate plaintiff’s lack of assets and the impecuniosity of two individual plaintiffs.

Balancing the security for costs rule, an earlier order requiring $125,000 security, and access to justice concerns, the court held that requiring the large additional amount requested would be unjust.

However, recognizing the importance of a damages report for mediation and pre‑trial, the court ordered a limited additional payment of $25,000 as security for costs.

The defendants were granted liberty to seek further security should the plaintiffs’ financial circumstances change.

The accused was charged with drug and firearm offences after police discovered a large-scale marihuana grow operation and a loaded rifle on his property.

The accused claimed he was held captive by two men who forced him to take responsibility for the drugs under threat of violence.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as not credible, applying the W.(D.) framework, and found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in sole control of the property, the drugs, and the firearm.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The moving party sought summary judgment to enforce minutes of settlement arising from an alleged failure by the responding parties to comply with an accepted offer.

The motion was brought under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court reviewed documentary evidence and affidavits relating to whether the moving party’s contractual rights had been assigned to a corporate entity prior to the settlement agreement.

The court concluded that the evidentiary record raised a genuine issue requiring a trial, including questions regarding the assignment of rights and the parties’ conduct following the purported settlement.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.