Karen A. Jensen

The court considered an application by Place Laurier Limited for leave to appeal an arbitration award regarding the fair market value of land subject to a ground lease.

The applicant argued the arbitrator failed to apply the correct legal test for determining the highest and best use of the land and did not provide sufficient reasons for the valuation.

The court found that while some issues raised extricable questions of law, the arbitrator had not erred in law and provided sufficient reasons.

The appeal was dismissed.

This decision addresses costs following a motion to change parenting arrangements, including a proposed relocation of the child, M.B., from Ontario to British Columbia.

The court reviews the parties’ conduct, offers to settle, and financial circumstances, ultimately awarding costs to the successful party, Mr. Bowick, but in an amount reduced for proportionality and ability to pay.

This costs decision follows a three-day trial in which Laurie Ann Huggins was almost entirely successful against Thomas Edward Hayhurst and Anne-Marie Carswell.

The court found that the Respondents acted in bad faith throughout the proceedings, including disobeying court orders, fraudulent conveyance of property, and intimidation.

The court reduced the Applicant’s Bill of Costs to $89,651.81, finding this amount reasonable and proportionate given the Respondents’ conduct and the complexity added to the litigation.

The Respondents were ordered to pay this amount immediately.

The court considered Jack Shapiro’s application for dependant support and a declaration of trust over a condominium following the death of his wife, Carol-Sue Shapiro.

The court found that Jack was a dependant under the Succession Law Reform Act and that Carol-Sue had not made adequate provision for his support in her will.

The court ordered that title to the matrimonial condominium be transferred to Jack, in addition to the $250,000 bequest, balancing Jack’s needs and Carol-Sue’s testamentary intentions to leave the majority of her estate to her son, Michael Shapiro.

The decision addresses interim spousal support and parenting time in the context of a short relationship with one young child.

The court increases interim spousal support to $3,000 per month, declines to order retroactive support, and grants the respondent an additional overnight of parenting time every two weeks, as well as permission to travel with the child to the Akwesasne Reserve in New York without the applicant’s consent.

The court balances the parties’ financial circumstances, the best interests of the child, and the importance of maintaining the child’s connection to her Indigenous heritage.

The court considered a motion by the Attorney General of Canada to strike the plaintiff’s action, which alleged negligence in the administration of pilot medical certification.

The plaintiff, a commercial pilot, had his medical certificate refused due to a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, but was later found fit and granted an unrestricted certificate after a successful appeal.

The court found that the regulatory regime’s purpose is public safety, not the protection of individual economic interests, and that no private law duty of care is owed by Transport Canada to pilots in these circumstances.

The action was struck in its entirety.

The court dismissed T.C.O. Agromart Ltd.'s claim against Sutton Farms (Nacona) Ltd. for damages arising from the collapse of a private farm bridge under the weight of a crop sprayer.

The court found that the accident was caused by the driver inadvertently steering the sprayer onto an unsupported overhang, not by any breach of the duty of care by Sutton Farms.

The bridge had been used safely for decades by experienced operators, and the risk of such an accident was not reasonably foreseeable.

The court also provided a detailed analysis of damages, but found no liability.

The court considered a summary judgment motion by the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa regarding the child, AM.

The Society sought a final custody order for TR, the father’s partner, but the court found there were significant triable issues, including the child’s Indigenous status, the adequacy of kinship assessments, and the best interests of the child regarding care and access.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the matter was sent to trial.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for malicious prosecution.

The plaintiff had been criminally charged with harassment and dangerous driving based on reports and video evidence provided by the defendants, which charges were later stayed.

The court found that the defendants did not initiate the criminal proceedings, as the police conducted an independent investigation and exercised their own discretion.

Furthermore, even if the defendants were deemed initiators, the court found they had reasonable and probable grounds for their complaints and that malice was not the sole basis for the prosecution.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

The applicants sought a declaration of a prescriptive right-of-way over a 100-foot path on the respondents' property and damages for nuisance and interference.

The court first ruled on a preliminary motion to strike two affidavits filed by the applicants, finding them inadmissible under Rule 39.02(2).

On the main application, the court found that the applicants failed to establish a prescriptive easement, primarily because the property owners (both current and previous) did not have knowledge of the path's use and did not acquiesce to it.

Furthermore, the court found that the easement was not reasonably necessary, as the applicants had previously declined an opportunity to purchase land for a legal access road.

The claim for damages for nuisance and interference was also dismissed, as the respondents' property development did not violate bylaws and did not unduly interfere with the applicants' property enjoyment.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that three children (I.D., A.D., H.D.) were in need of protection and an order for their placement with the maternal grandmother under Society supervision.

The court found the children to be Inuit based on their strong self-identification and cultural participation, despite some uncertainty regarding ancestral connection.

The court granted the summary judgment, finding the children in need of protection due to the mother's failure to protect them from a father with sexual offense charges, her emotional dysregulation, and health issues affecting her parenting capacity.

The court ordered the children's placement with the maternal grandmother for six months under Society supervision, emphasizing the augmented best interests test for Indigenous children under the Federal Act.

This case concerns an application for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee, which was challenged by the deceased's husband and daughter on grounds of undue influence and testamentary fraud.

The objectors alleged that the deceased's son and his wife fraudulently influenced the deceased to disinherit her daughter and significantly reduce her husband's inheritance by instilling false beliefs about the daughter's husband and the husband's financial well-being.

The court found no evidence that the son and his wife perpetrated or encouraged these alleged falsehoods.

The deceased's testamentary changes were determined to be her own decisions, made gradually over time, based on her long-standing concerns about protecting the family's wealth from her son-in-law, and after receiving independent professional advice.

The court dismissed the objections, declared the wills valid, and granted the application for the Certificate of Appointment.

The Applicant, Traci-Lynne Elizabeth Crozier, and the Respondent, Renaud Nolin, cohabiting parents of two children, separated in 2022.

Ms. Crozier brought a motion seeking temporary sole decision-making responsibility, primary parenting time, spousal support, increased child support based on imputed income, and disclosure.

Mr. Nolin cross-moved for reduced child support, proportional sharing of Section 7 expenses, and disclosure.

The court denied Ms. Crozier's request for sole decision-making, maintaining joint responsibility.

It set Mr. Nolin's interim child support income at $100,000, rejecting both parties' proposed imputations.

Spousal support entitlement for Ms. Crozier was found, but the quantum was deferred pending clarification of Section 7 expenses.

The court ordered proportional sharing of Section 7 expenses (80% Nolin, 20% Crozier) and extensive financial disclosure from Mr. Nolin.

Costs were awarded to Ms. Crozier.

This decision addresses two motions in a family law context.

The applicant sought an order for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home and exclusive possession to prepare for the sale.

The respondent filed a counter-motion seeking to establish the date of separation, a timeline for equalization of net family property, and court directives on the impact of prior separations on pension division and equalization.

The court granted the applicant's motion for partition and sale of the matrimonial home, finding no malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct by the applicant and that the sale would not prejudice the respondent's equalization interests, with a portion of proceeds to be held in trust.

However, the court denied the applicant's request for exclusive possession, noting it is an exceptional remedy not warranted at this stage.

The respondent's counter-motion regarding the separation date and equalization directives was dismissed, as these issues require a full evidentiary record at trial.

The court also declined to set a timeline for equalization but encouraged alternative dispute resolution.

The respondent was reminded to comply with a prior child support order.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion to reduce the mother's access to the child and remove the stepfather's access, while providing access to the paternal great-aunt.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking the child's return to her care.

The court denied the mother's cross-motion, finding she had not met the high threshold under s. 113(8) of the CYFSA for returning the child to her care, primarily due to her inconsistency and the child's need for stability.

The court granted the Society's motion to vary access, reducing the mother's minimum access to once per week, removing the stepfather's access, and granting the paternal great-aunt access, finding these changes were in the child's best interests, considering both the CYFSA and the augmented best interests test under the Federal Act for Indigenous children.

The appellant, S.B., appealed a decision by the Consent and Capacity Board (the Board) that upheld a physician's finding of his incapacity to manage property due to Huntington's disease.

The Board applied a two-part test under the Substitute Decisions Act, finding S.B. could understand financial information but could not appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his financial decisions.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the appeal on a standard of palpable and overriding error for mixed questions of fact and law.

The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the Board correctly applied the capacity test by considering S.B.'s lack of insight into his condition's impact on his finances, coupled with his history of poor financial management and vulnerability to exploitation.

The court also rejected the argument that a pre-existing Power of Attorney nullified the capacity assessment, as this issue was not raised at the initial Board hearing.

The Respondent brought a motion disputing the Ontario Superior Court of Justice's jurisdiction over family law issues, including decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and child support, concerning the child O.R. The Applicant argued that Ontario had jurisdiction based on the child's habitual residence.

The court found that O.R. was habitually resident in Ontario at the time the application was filed, with the implied consent or acquiescence of the Respondent, thereby establishing the court's jurisdiction.

This decision addresses a motion for summary judgment and to strike portions of a Statement of Claim.

The Plaintiffs, a corporation and its principal, sued for breach of contract after their independent contractor agreement was terminated.

The Defendants sought to strike the claim for wrongful termination and other allegations, arguing compliance with the contract's notice provision and irrelevance of other pleaded facts.

The court found that the termination claim had no reasonable prospect of success as proper notice was given.

It also struck claims against individual defendants due to privity of contract and ordered the removal of scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious allegations, including those related to defamation, the organization's history, and a Ministry of Labour investigation.

However, the court allowed the claim for breach of the contract's dispute resolution clause to proceed, granting leave for the Plaintiffs to amend their pleading to properly articulate this claim and associated aggravated and punitive damages, and to establish the principal's standing as a party.

The plaintiff, Margaret Godard, sought partial indemnity costs after settling her claim against Intelcom Courier Canada Inc. for $70,000, four days before trial.

The court was tasked with fixing costs, applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than Rule 58, as the parties had agreed to have costs fixed by a judge.

The court considered the principle of indemnity, reasonable expectations, and proportionality.

It found the plaintiff's costs claim to be reasonable overall, with a minor deduction of $497.17 for expert travel expenses that were not incurred.

The court fixed costs at $70,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, finding this amount struck an appropriate balance given the circumstances, including Intelcom's late acceptance of the settlement offer and its conduct during litigation.

The Applicant brought a summary judgment motion seeking orders for sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence of the children, child support, Section 7 expenses, and equalization.

The Respondent had a history of breaching court orders, criminal harassment, and intentional under-employment.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial, imputed income to the Respondent, and ordered child support, arrears, fixed Section 7 contributions, and an equalization payment to the Applicant.

The Respondent was granted supervised parenting time with conditions for review.