Martin James

The respondent law firm brought a motion to vary an Order for Assessment of a series of legal accounts delivered to the applicant estate trustees over a 12-year period.

The law firm argued the accounts were final and paid, while the client argued they were interim and thus assessable.

The court held that the older accounts, which related to completed matters and had been paid years prior, were final and not liable to assessment.

However, the more recent accounts relating to ongoing litigation were deemed interim and remained liable to assessment.

The Order for Assessment was varied accordingly.

The applicant brought a motion for child support and disclosure, while the respondent sought a shared parenting arrangement for their two youngest children.

The court ordered ongoing child support based on the respondent's current income but declined to order retroactive support on a temporary basis due to conflicting evidence.

The court dismissed the respondent's request for a week-about parenting schedule, finding it was not in the children's best interests, and maintained the status quo of alternating weekends with a mid-week visit.

The accused brought Charter applications to exclude evidence obtained during a traffic stop and subsequent searches of cell phones and a vehicle GPS device following a home invasion robbery.

The court found no breaches of the accused's rights under ss. 8, 9, or 10 of the Charter during the initial stop and arrest.

The court also upheld the validity of the search warrants and production orders.

Although the police failed to file a timely report to justice for the seized items, the court assumed a s. 8 breach but admitted the evidence under s. 24(2), finding the breach was not serious and the evidence was highly reliable and important to the prosecution.

The applicant, a minority shareholder in a closely-held corporation operating a minor hockey tournament, sought an oppression remedy against the two other shareholders.

The respondents, dissatisfied with the applicant's performance, attempted to force him to sell his shares and subsequently dissolved the corporation to exclude him while continuing the business through a new entity.

The court found that the respondents breached their fiduciary duties to the corporation and acted oppressively by dissolving the corporation for the improper purpose of eliminating the applicant.

The court awarded the applicant special damages based on the agreed valuation formula and general damages for the oppressive conduct.

The defendants, a police detective and the Crown, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for negligent investigation.

The plaintiff, a former police officer, alleged that the detective lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him for domestic violence offences and relied on unreliable complainants.

The court found that the detective conducted a comprehensive investigation, consulted with supervisors and the Crown, and met the standard of care of a reasonable police officer.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed, as there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The respondent brought a motion to change seeking to adjust his child support and life insurance obligations, and to impute income to the applicant.

The applicant, who receives income replacement benefits from Veteran's Affairs Canada, opposed the motion and sought increased support and section 7 expenses.

The court terminated child support for the older child who had graduated, adjusted support for the younger child, and declined to impute income to the applicant, finding she was not deliberately under-employed.

The court also reduced the respondent's life insurance obligation and resolved various disputed post-secondary education expenses.

The moving party brought a motion for a temporary reduction of his spousal support obligation pending a full hearing on his Motion to Change, citing his medical release from the military and reliance on pension income.

The responding party brought a cross-motion for financial disclosure.

Applying the test for interim variation, the court found the moving party failed to establish urgency or hardship, and noted his failure to provide accurate and ongoing financial disclosure.

The motion for a temporary reduction in support was dismissed, and both parties were ordered to provide updated financial disclosure.

The moving party brought a motion for an order to sell the parties' jointly owned, unfinished matrimonial home prior to trial, for a Voice of the Child Report, and for leave to amend her answer to claim spousal support.

The court dismissed the request for the sale of the home due to uncertainty regarding its current equity and because it currently houses the parties' child, noting that a new motion could be brought once an updated appraisal is obtained.

The court granted the requests for a Voice of the Child Report and for leave to amend the answer to claim spousal support.

The applicant, an elector, brought an application under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act alleging that the respondent municipal councillor had an indirect pecuniary interest when he voted to support a proposed nuclear waste facility.

The respondent was employed by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), the proponent of the facility.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that CNL had a pecuniary interest in the project, as there was insufficient evidence regarding CNL's financial arrangements and remuneration.

The offender was convicted of forgery and obstruction of justice after submitting a forged letter of support from her employer during a sentencing hearing for a previous fraud conviction.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defence proposed 12 to 18 months.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the offender's premeditated attempt to deceive the court and her prior criminal record.

The offender was sentenced to a global term of 20 months' imprisonment, followed by 12 months of probation.

The Crown's request for a DNA order was denied.

The applicant sought costs of $15,219.55 following a partially successful motion to change that terminated child support retroactively and ordered the respondent to repay $8,880.

The respondent, who was self-represented and had modest income, faced significant financial hardship from the substantive order.

Despite the applicant's favourable offers to settle, the court declined to award costs, finding that requiring the respondent to pay costs would constitute an unjustifiable hardship.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the applicant sought costs for the entire proceeding.

The applicant served offers to settle that compared well with the results achieved, and the respondent's uncooperative approach increased costs.

The court found the requested amount of $62,100.71 to be reasonable and proportional, and ordered the respondent to pay this amount forthwith.

The applicant brought a motion for contempt against the respondent for failing to provide his 2016 notice of assessment as required by a previous court order.

The respondent claimed he provided a tax assessment in a bag during an access exchange, but the court found this method of service unacceptable and the document insufficient.

The court found the respondent in contempt, ordered him to provide his 2016 and 2017 notices of assessment, and awarded costs of $2,500 to the applicant.

The parties brought competing motions regarding the selection of an assessor and the scope of a court-ordered views of the child report for their 15-year-old daughter.

The applicant father sought a more expansive hybrid assessment, while the respondent mother had inappropriately contacted her preferred nominee directly.

Given the complications, controversy, and expense generated by the initial order, the court dismissed both motions and amended its previous order to delete the requirement for a court-ordered report, leaving it to the parties to obtain one on a mutually agreeable basis if they choose.

The respondent father brought a motion for a stay of enforcement pending an appeal of a temporary order that changed primary parenting responsibility of the parties' 7-year-old daughter to the applicant mother.

The father argued the motion judge erred in refusing an adjournment, lacked jurisdiction, and failed to maintain the status quo.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the motion judge's refusal of an adjournment was entitled to deference, the jurisdictional argument lacked merit under rule 15(28), and compliance with the temporary order would not cause irreparable harm while the balance of convenience favoured leaving the child in the mother's care pending trial.

The respondent brought a motion for the sale of the jointly-owned family home and equal division of proceeds, challenging a prior vesting order in favour of the applicant.

The parties were unmarried but had children together.

The respondent's pleadings had previously been struck for failure to disclose.

The court corrected a calculation error from a previous endorsement regarding the home's equity and post-separation expenses, resulting in a small deficit which the court treated as a wash.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion to contest the vesting order, finding it inappropriate given his failure to pay outstanding costs orders, child support arrears, and consistent disregard for court orders.

The plaintiffs sued the school board, a vice-principal, and a former student for events that occurred in September 2009, alleging false imprisonment, malicious intent, and negligence after the plaintiff student was arrested for uttering threats.

The court found the defendants' evidence credible, rejected the plaintiffs' allegations of a grudge or malicious intent by the vice-principal, and concluded the confinement of the student during the investigation was justified.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to adjourn a family law trial scheduled to proceed in four weeks due to her counsel's competing trial commitment.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, citing his age, health, and the stress of ongoing litigation, as well as the applicant's counsel's neglect in addressing the scheduling conflict earlier.

The court weighed the prejudice to both parties and the broader public interest, concluding that the potential prejudice to the applicant of proceeding without counsel outweighed the inconvenience to the respondent, which could be compensated in costs.

The trial was adjourned to the fall sittings, peremptory to the applicant, with submissions requested on whether the applicant's counsel should personally bear the costs.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving and criminal harassment, arguing the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons, misapprehended evidence, and relied on inconsistent testimony from the complainant.

The charges arose from incidents following the separation of the parties, including the appellant cutting off the complainant's vehicle and following her on multiple occasions.

The summary conviction appeal court found that the trial judge's findings were supported by the uncontradicted evidence of the complainant and that the trial judge adequately addressed any minor discrepancies in the testimony.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was tried on a 7-count indictment involving allegations of domestic assault, mischief, and breach of probation against his former partner.

The court applied the W(D) framework to assess credibility, noting inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence but finding her credible regarding two specific assaults (chest bumping and head butting).

The accused was found guilty of two counts of assault and two counts of breach of probation, but acquitted of one count of assault and one count of mischief.

A charge of unlawful confinement was withdrawn.