Wilcox

The applicant wife brought a motion for the interim sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home.

The respondent husband opposed the sale and brought a cross-motion seeking to have the applicant's interest transferred to him or to be granted exclusive possession.

The court applied the principles for partition and sale in family law cases, finding the applicant had a prima facie right to sale and the respondent failed to show his family law claims would be unfairly prejudiced.

The court noted it lacked jurisdiction to compel one joint tenant to sell to the other.

The motion for sale was granted, with each party to receive 25% of the net proceeds and the balance held in trust pending trial.

The moving party brought a motion seeking the release of net proceeds from the sale of a property, which were being held in trust.

The responding party opposed, arguing that a joint credit line/mortgage debt and property tax arrears on other properties needed to be paid from the proceeds first.

The court ordered that $70,000 be retained in trust to cover the outstanding credit line/mortgage debt, with the balance released to the moving party.

The court declined to order the payment of the unspecified property tax arrears from these funds.

The respondent mother brought a motion for a temporary order permitting her to relocate with the children from North Bay to Ottawa and to arrange a psychoeducational assessment for the youngest child without the applicant father's consent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed relocation would be highly disruptive to the established status quo and that the mother had not met the test for an interim move.

The court also declined to order the psychoeducational assessment as there was no formal recommendation and the child's school did not believe it was necessary.

The accused was discharged at a preliminary inquiry on two counts of trafficking in a scheduled substance under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown subsequently preferred an indictment that included two counts of trafficking in a substance held out to be a scheduled substance, based on the same underlying facts.

The accused brought a motion to quash these counts, arguing they were the same offences for which he had been discharged.

The court agreed, finding that trafficking is a single offence that can be committed in different ways, and therefore the Crown could not prefer an indictment for these charges under section 574 of the Criminal Code.

The application was granted and the counts were quashed.

The applicant First Nation brought an application for possession of a residential unit on the reserve and payment of rent arrears against the respondents.

The respondents failed to defend the application.

The court found it had jurisdiction to hear the matter as a private law contract, noting that provincial landlord and tenant legislation does not apply on reserves.

The court granted the application, finding multiple breaches of the lease agreement including rent arrears, unlawful use of the premises, changing locks, and continuing to reside in the premises after a fire rendered it uninhabitable.

The respondents were ordered to vacate and pay $4,900 in arrears.

The Sahebdivani defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff under Rule 56.01(1)(d).

The defendants established good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario, citing evidence that the plaintiff was inoperative, its sole director was an undischarged bankrupt, and it faced significant environmental remediation orders.

The plaintiff failed to meet its onus to demonstrate sufficient exigible assets, providing inadequate financial disclosure.

The court granted the motion and ordered the plaintiff to post $75,000 in security for costs in installments.

In an application challenging the validity of an elderly father's powers of attorney, the respondent brought a motion to dismiss parts of the application.

A preliminary issue arose regarding whether the applicant could cross-examine the deponents of the respondent's affidavits before the motion was heard.

The respondent argued that the applicant must first meet the minimum evidentiary threshold test established for will challenges.

The court held that the minimum evidentiary threshold test under Rule 75 does not apply to power of attorney disputes under the Substitute Decisions Act, and permitted the cross-examination as of right under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against an emergency room physician, alleging negligence in the diagnosis and treatment of an abscess and hyperglycemia.

The plaintiff claimed the abscess was anorectal and required immediate incision and drainage, while the defendant diagnosed a simple buttocks abscess that was not yet ready to drain.

The court preferred the evidence of the defence expert, finding that the abscess was located on the buttock and that the defendant's treatment plan met the standard of care.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that Trussler Road, located in an unorganized township, is a public road under the Municipal Act, thereby allowing them access to their rural property.

The court found that while the Municipal Act definition of a public highway applies to unorganized townships, the evidence did not establish that Trussler Road was a colonization road, that statute labour was usually performed on it, or that it had been dedicated and accepted for public use.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, dismissed the plaintiffs' action in its entirety.

The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to suspend a building permit issued by the town for the construction of a dock on a neighbouring waterfront property.

The applicant argued the proposed location differed from a previously approved site plan and would eventually house a boathouse that would obstruct his view.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the planning process, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm from the dock's construction, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent property owner.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion for financial disclosure in a family law proceeding.

The respondent had repeatedly failed to provide required financial information, necessitating multiple court orders.

The court found that the respondent behaved unreasonably and acted in bad faith by failing to provide full, timely, and accurate disclosure.

Consequently, pursuant to Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $19,713.50.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment seeking forfeiture of a $50,000 deposit paid by the defendant purchaser under an agreement of purchase and sale for an apartment building.

The purchaser argued the agreement became null and void when an insurance condition was not waived by the deadline.

The court found that the parties' conduct in continuing to work on the transaction after the deadline constituted a waiver of the condition.

The court further found that the purchaser terminated the agreement for reasons unrelated to the conditions and acted in bad faith by retroactively attempting to rely on the insurance condition.

The court granted summary judgment, ordering the $50,000 deposit forfeited to the vendor and dismissing the purchaser's counterclaim.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, arguing the plaintiff failed to provide written notice within 10 days as required by section 44(10) of the Municipal Act.

The plaintiff argued the notice provision was of no force and effect, that notice was not required after 10 days, and that the discoverability principle delayed the start of the notice period.

The court rejected these arguments, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the want of notice under section 44(12).

The action against the municipality was dismissed.

The parties separated after a long marriage during which they built a successful family business.

They settled property issues, with the respondent buying out the applicant's share of the business for over $1.6 million.

The applicant sought spousal support, arguing economic disadvantage and loss of the pre-separation standard of living.

The respondent argued that the property equalization precluded spousal support and that the applicant had no need.

The court found the applicant entitled to support, distinguishing the equalization of a business from a pension, and ordered the respondent to pay $9,584 per month based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, while declining to impute additional income to the respondent for alleged undisclosed cash transactions or business perks.

The appellant mother appealed an interim interim order made by the Ontario Court of Justice in a child protection proceeding.

The child had been apprehended by the agency and placed with her father under supervision.

The appellant was not present at the initial hearing.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no appealable error in the lower court's decision to adjourn the matter and make a temporary order for the child's care and custody while ordering the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.