M.J. Valente

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's amended statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff, a home builder, had sued the defendant land developer and its principal for breach of contract, various torts, and oppression arising from a completed agreement of purchase and sale.

The court systematically analyzed all nine causes of action pleaded by the plaintiff and found that each failed to plead the necessary material facts or relied on non-existent legal duties.

The court struck all claims without leave to amend and dismissed the action.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment regarding a disputed legacy in her late father's will, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the traditional estate costs rules should apply, finding that the litigation was caused by the drafting solicitor's error, not the testator's actions.

Applying normal civil costs rules, the court ordered the plaintiff to bear her own costs due to her tactical conduct, ordered the drafting solicitor to bear his own costs because his error caused the litigation, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the partial indemnity costs of the estate and foundation.

The offender was convicted by a jury of possession of methamphetamine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a 6-year prison sentence, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence.

The court found the offender to be a mid-level trafficker motivated by commercial gain, but noted her lack of a criminal record and strong potential for rehabilitation.

Emphasizing the dangers of fentanyl and the need for denunciation and deterrence, the court rejected a conditional sentence and imposed a 4-year custodial sentence.

The parties, who were married in Iran and moved to Canada, sought a divorce and corollary relief.

The applicant sought sole decision-making responsibility, restricted parenting time, enforcement of an Iranian marriage contract (maher), and retroactive child support based on imputed income.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making responsibility but allowed the respondent graduated unsupervised parenting time with strict safeguards against international abduction to Iran.

The court found the Iranian marriage contract valid and enforceable, ordering the respondent to transfer his interest in the matrimonial home to the applicant.

The court also imputed income to the respondent for a period of intentional unemployment and ordered retroactive child support.

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo applied for an injunction to evict residents of a homeless encampment on Region-owned property, citing a by-law prohibiting the erection of structures.

The encampment residents brought a constitutional challenge, arguing the by-law violated their rights under sections 7 and 15(1) of the Charter.

The court found that the number of homeless individuals in the Region exceeded the number of accessible shelter beds.

Consequently, the by-law's prohibition on erecting temporary shelters violated the residents' section 7 rights to life, liberty, and security of the person, and was not saved by section 1.

The section 15(1) claim was dismissed as homelessness is not an analogous ground.

The court declined to grant the injunction and declared the by-law inoperative insofar as it prevents homeless individuals from erecting temporary shelters when accessible shelter beds are insufficient.

The moving party insurer brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action, arguing that the Personal Excess Liability Policy Endorsement in the deceased's homeowner's policy did not provide coverage for the motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff's common-law spouse was killed in a collision with a motorist who had $1,000,000 in liability coverage, which equalled the limits of the plaintiff's OPCF 44R family protection coverage.

The court held that the undefined term 'inadequately insured motorist' in the excess endorsement adopted the definition from the underlying auto policy.

Because the third-party motorist's limits were not less than the plaintiff's OPCF 44R limits, the motorist was not inadequately insured, and the excess endorsement was not triggered.

The action against the insurer was dismissed.

The father brought a motion to change seeking sole or joint decision-making responsibility and maximum unsupervised parenting time, alleging the children were at risk of physical and sexual abuse in the mother's care.

The mother brought a cross-motion to terminate the father's parenting time entirely and to remove requirements for his consent for travel and passports.

The court found no material change in circumstances to alter decision-making, as the father's abuse allegations were unsubstantiated.

The court declined to terminate the father's parenting time, instead ordering a graduated schedule starting with supervised visits.

The court granted the mother's request to dispense with the father's consent for passports and travel.

The applicant insurer and respondent insureds were engaged in a statutory appraisal process under the Insurance Act to determine the value of flood damage to the insureds' home.

The insurer brought an application to inspect the property and to remove the insureds' appraiser for allegedly refusing to act.

The insureds brought a cross-application seeking to compel the insurer's appraiser to identify specific disagreements and for a declaration regarding the determination of actual cash value.

The court held that the insurer retained its contractual right to inspect the property and ordered an inspection as directed by the umpire.

The court declined to remove the insureds' appraiser, finding his conduct unprofessional but not amounting to a refusal to act.

The insureds' requests were dismissed, as the umpire has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the appraisal procedure and had not exceeded his jurisdiction.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for an unpaid commercial account for animal feed supplied to the defendant's dairy goat farm.

The defendant disputed the debt, alleging the feed was defective, caused health issues and death in his herd, and claimed an equitable set-off for lost profits.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the plaintiff proved the debt and the 30% annual simple interest rate.

The court dismissed the defences, noting the defendant failed to provide expert evidence linking the feed to the herd's health issues or financial evidence to support the set-off claim.

The applicant bank, a judgment creditor, brought a motion seeking an order directing a reference to conduct the sale of the judgment debtor's real property, rather than proceeding by way of a sheriff's sale under the Execution Act.

The bank relied on previous case law suggesting the court had inherent jurisdiction to order a judicial sale due to impediments caused by privacy legislation.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that the Supreme Court of Canada had since resolved the privacy legislation impediment.

The court held that absent special circumstances or injustice, the statutory sheriff's sale process prescribed by the Legislature must prevail over common law or regulatory processes.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, retroactive support, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed spousal support, relying on a marriage contract that waived it.

The court found a serious triable issue regarding whether the marriage contract complied with the objectives of the Divorce Act, allowing an interim spousal support award of $25,500 per month and child support of $9,918 per month.

The court deferred the issue of retroactive support to trial but granted the applicant's request to order the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The accused was tried for two counts of sexual assault and one count of attempting to choke the complainant.

The case turned on the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the accused, both of whom had consumed significant amounts of alcohol during the weekend in question.

Applying the W.(D). framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence but found that the complainant's testimony contained significant inconsistencies and memory gaps regarding core events.

Consequently, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of all charges.