Marc Smith

The plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action sought leave to amend their Statement of Claim for a fourth time.

The defendant physicians opposed several amendments, arguing they introduced new statute-barred claims for wrongful death and spoliation of evidence, added new allegations based on unpleaded facts, and impermissibly withdrew prior admissions.

The court allowed most of the amendments, finding they merely particularized the existing factual matrix, but struck specific sentences that implicitly advanced a statute-barred wrongful death claim, contained inflammatory language, or pleaded immaterial legal conclusions regarding non-delegable duties.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion seeking child support from the parents of a 15-year-old autistic child who had been in the Society's care since June 2023.

Despite failing to comply with financial disclosure orders, evidence showed the mother earned approximately $144,000 and the father was imputed a minimum wage income.

The court ordered the mother to pay $800 per month and the father to pay $200 per month in child support, but declined to order them to maintain life insurance policies.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention seeking the return of his two-year-old child from Ontario to Australia.

The respondent mother opposed the application, arguing the child's habitual residence was in Ontario and raising exceptions under Articles 13(a) and 13(b).

The court found that the child's habitual residence had become Ontario prior to the alleged wrongful retention, largely due to the parties' relocation plans and the father's abusive conduct and withdrawal of financial support.

Alternatively, the court found the father had acquiesced to the child remaining in Ontario.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought costs following her success at a family law trial and a summary judgment motion.

The respondent argued he had an inability to pay due to being on long-term disability and claimed the applicant's costs were excessive.

The court found the respondent's litigation conduct to be unreasonable and unsubstantiated, noting his claimed impecuniosity could not be used as a shield for such conduct.

The court awarded the applicant $35,000 for the trial and $30,000 for the summary judgment motion, payable at $2,000 per month.

The payor father brought a motion to change a 2009 final order that imputed his income at $30,000 for child support purposes.

He sought to retroactively decrease support and rescind approximately $19,000 in arrears owed to the Family Responsibility Office and third-party assignees.

The court found a material change in circumstances as the children were now adults and the father's income had never reached the imputed amount.

Applying the Colucci framework, the court exercised its discretion to retroactively decrease the child support arrears to zero, noting the father's understandable delay, good faith voluntary payments, and severe financial hardship.

The plaintiff, operating under a pseudolegal name, brought an action against his siblings regarding their deceased father's estate, seeking damages, property, and other unusual relief.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment.

The court found that the plaintiff lacked legal standing as it was not a recognized legal entity.

Furthermore, the court held there was no genuine issue for trial, as the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence to support his allegations of procedural impropriety, inheritance entitlement, or property mismanagement.

The action was dismissed with prejudice, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded against the plaintiff personally.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation claim.

The plaintiff, former Executive Director of the local Chamber of Commerce, sued the defendants after they wrote letters to various organizations criticizing her job performance and calling for her termination.

The court found that while the expressions related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff's claim had substantial merit and there were grounds to believe the defences of qualified privilege and fair comment would fail.

The court concluded that the harm suffered by the plaintiff outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions, which were vitriolic and motivated by personal animus.

The motion was dismissed.

The mother brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the parties' two children, as well as child support.

The father requested an adjournment, claiming he had been in Africa for health reasons and questioning his paternity of one child.

The court partially denied the adjournment, proceeding with the parenting issues but adjourning the child support claims.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, noting she had been the primary caregiver and the father had not seen the children in over three years.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's Answer and vest the matrimonial home in her name due to the respondent's persistent non-compliance with multiple court orders.

The respondent had previously been found in contempt, jailed for 30 days, and claimed to have burned over $1 million in cash to avoid paying the applicant.

The court found the respondent's conduct egregious and struck his Answer regarding financial issues, allowing the applicant to proceed to an uncontested trial on those matters.

The court also granted a vesting order transferring the matrimonial home to the applicant to secure her interests against the respondent's anticipated future non-compliance.

Following a successful motion by the respondents declining to confirm an Assessment Officer's decision, the parties could not agree on costs.

The applicants argued costs should be in the cause as the matter was returned to a judge for determination.

The court rejected this argument, finding the respondents were presumptively entitled to costs as the successful party.

The court found the respondents' claimed costs of $30,749.59 excessive due to duplication of work by multiple timekeepers, and fixed costs at $15,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff was awarded over $1.1 million in damages following a personal injury trial.

The parties appeared before the court to determine the costs of the trial and the calculation of a management fee.

The court found that the plaintiff had made reasonable offers to settle that were more favourable than the judgment, entitling her to elevated costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff $852,528.03 in costs and disbursements, and fixed the management fee at $125,000 based on an annualized sliding scale rather than a fixed percentage.

The defendants brought a motion to withdraw an admission made in their Statement of Defence regarding the plaintiff's entitlement to common law reasonable notice.

The plaintiff opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to strike portions of the defendants' motion record.

The court applied the three-part test for withdrawing an admission and found that there was a triable issue regarding the enforceability of the termination provision, the admission was made in error, and the withdrawal would not cause non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff.

The motion to withdraw the admission was granted.

The plaintiff was entitled to costs for the cross-motion, but the court offset these against the defendants' costs for the main motion, ordering each party to bear their own costs.

The respondents brought a motion opposing the confirmation of an Assessment Officer's decision that reduced their legal accounts from $221,336.66 to $35,000.

The court found that the Assessment Officer failed to provide sufficient reasons for the drastic reduction, as she did not meaningfully analyze the Cohen factors or explain how she arrived at the reduced amount.

The court declined to confirm the assessment and directed that the matter be returned to the judge hearing the application.

Following the dismissal of Hockey Canada's motion to withdraw an affidavit and the vacating of its summary judgment motion, the plaintiff sought costs.

The plaintiff claimed partial indemnity costs for the motion and full indemnity for costs thrown away, totaling over $70,000.

The court found the plaintiff's claimed hours excessive due to duplication of work by multiple timekeepers and determined that some work done for the summary judgment motion could be repurposed for trial.

The court fixed the costs payable by Hockey Canada to the plaintiff at $25,000 all-inclusive.

The applicant mother sought an order under s. 164 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to commit the child to a secure treatment program.

The child, who suffers from severe mental health disorders and complex medical needs, had been engaging in continuous self-harming and aggressive behaviours while hospitalized.

The court found that all six statutory criteria for secure treatment were met, relying on expert medical testimony that the child required a long-term therapeutic process in a secure setting.

The application was granted, and the child was committed to the secure treatment program for 90 days.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to set aside a marriage contract following her husband's death, alleging she did not understand the contract and that he failed to disclose significant assets.

The respondent estate opposed the motion, arguing that the applicant's credibility was a genuine issue for trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant's uncorroborated evidence contradicted the written contract and certificates of independent legal advice, and that a full trial was necessary to assess her credibility and the validity of the contract.

Following the dismissal of the respondent father's motion regarding jurisdiction and the return of the children to the UAE, the applicant mother sought full indemnity costs.

The court awarded the mother $45,000 in costs on an elevated scale, finding that the father engaged in bad faith, failed to comply with court orders, withheld crucial documents regarding foreign custody proceedings, and ignored reasonable offers to settle.

Following the dismissal of the Creditors' garnishment motions against LawPro, the parties could not agree on costs.

LawPro sought over $82,000 in partial indemnity costs, while the Creditors argued they were the successful parties because they recovered an indemnity payment after bringing the motions.

The court found LawPro's costs disproportionate and excessive, noting the Creditors acted reasonably in bringing the motions which prompted LawPro to discover an error and make a payment.

The court awarded LawPro $20,000 in costs.

Following a successful summary judgment motion in a defamation action, the plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $26,547.56.

The defendant did not file responding materials.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1), noting the importance of the issues, the success achieved, and the reasonable rates claimed.

However, applying the principle of proportionality and noting potential duplication of work among multiple timekeepers, as well as the defendant's likely limited financial resources, the court fixed costs at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

In a family law dispute involving jurisdiction and custody issues between Ontario and the UAE, a voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of the parties' proposed expert reports on Sharia Law and Islamic Legal Systems.

The court qualified the applicant mother's expert, finding he possessed the necessary special knowledge and experience.

The court disqualified the respondent father's expert and ruled his report inadmissible, finding that the expert was likely not the true author of the report, failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 20.2 of the Family Law Rules, and lacked the necessary specialized experience to render an opinion.