Kathleen E. Cullin

The applicant, an estate trustee operating a seasonal campground, sought a declaration that the rental contract for a cottage lot was governed by the Commercial Tenancies Act rather than the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The respondents, who purchased a permanent cottage on the rented lot, argued the RTA applied.

The court examined the nature of the rental arrangement, including the permanent structure, year-round financial obligations such as property taxes and insurance, and the pattern of long-term occupancy, and found that the lot constituted a rental unit within the meaning of the RTA.

The s. 5(a) exemption for seasonal or temporary accommodation did not apply, as the arrangement was more consistent with an ongoing residential tenancy than transient seasonal use.

The matter was remitted to the Landlord and Tenant Board.

Following a trial on damages in a commercial dispute involving mall tenancy losses, the court issued supplementary reasons correcting calculation errors in the damages previously awarded.

The correction increased the total damages to $580,600.63 after identifying an arithmetic mistake relating to losses associated with inducing a replacement anchor tenant.

The parties jointly agreed to prejudgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act at a rate of 2.8%, resulting in prejudgment interest of $352,973.37 to January 15, 2026.

The plaintiffs’ remaining claims for damages were dismissed.

Costs were left to be determined following written submissions.

In a family law costs decision following a focused hearing on common-law cohabitation, the court applied s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court reviewed governing costs principles, including presumptive entitlement for success at a step, fairness and reasonableness, access to justice, and the relevance of litigation conduct and financial circumstances to quantum.

Although the successful party sought full indemnity costs for broader steps in the proceeding, the court confined the award to the focused hearing and found full indemnity unwarranted on the record.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs at 60% of the focused-hearing amount, totaling $8,014.64 inclusive of HST, payable in any event of the cause.

On competing motions in a legal malpractice action, the court refused to strike the defendants’ summary judgment motion in its entirety and narrowed the issues suitable for summary adjudication.

The court held that standard of care and certain causation and damages issues could proceed summarily, while broader causation questions tied to unjoined parties would require a trial-within-a-trial analysis.

The court also ruled extensively on evidentiary admissibility, striking specific affidavit paragraphs, exhibits, and will-state statements while allowing other hearsay-limited material for non-truth purposes related to knowledge and retainer scope.

The matter was directed to continue with a focused summary judgment record and a subsequent case management conference.

Following a judge-alone trial on May 21, 2025, the accused was found guilty of assault by choking contrary to section 267(c) of the Criminal Code and not guilty of simple assault.

At sentencing on September 9, 2025, the court imposed an absolute discharge with ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, victim fine surcharge, and a 12-month peace bond.

The Crown sought 60 days incarceration plus 12 months probation, while the defence sought an absolute discharge.

The court found that while the offence involved intimate partner violence, the unique circumstances—including the accused's reduced moral culpability, first-time offender status, extensive rehabilitation efforts, and significant collateral consequences—warranted a discharge rather than incarceration.

The court addressed two competing motions arising from overlapping proceedings: an application commenced by 9165-6462 Quebec Inc. in Sudbury seeking enforcement of a Transfer Agreement and declarations regarding share ownership, and an action commenced by the plaintiff in Cochrane seeking declarations that the Transfer Agreement is void and that he remains the owner of shares in the DJB companies.

The plaintiff sought to consolidate the proceedings and transfer them to Cochrane, while 9165 Inc. sought to stay or dismiss the action in favour of the application.

The court found that permitting the action to proceed would constitute an abuse of process and an improper collateral attack on a prior judicial order declining to transfer the application.

The court stayed the action against 9165 Inc. pending resolution of the application and dismissed the consolidation motion without prejudice.

The defendant brought a motion to amend its statement of defence to add counterclaims against the plaintiffs, their counsel, and a court reporting service.

The counterclaims alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, abuse of process, invasion of privacy, and other causes of action arising from alleged misrepresentation regarding document service and the billing of discovery examination fees.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed counterclaims did not advance legally tenable causes of action and that the issues raised were not properly the subject of a counterclaim in this proceeding.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the plaintiffs.

The respondent brought a motion to change seeking to terminate his obligation to pay spousal support following his retirement.

The applicant, who was in default and did not file responding materials, receives spousal support as her primary source of income.

The court found that while retirement constituted a material change in circumstances warranting variation of support, termination was not appropriate given the long-term nature of the marriage and the applicant's ongoing financial need.

The court reduced spousal support from $3,000 to $1,730 per month, calculated using realistic income projections from the respondent's retirement savings, government benefits, and inheritance funds.

The court also vacated the requirement to maintain employment benefits but ordered that spousal support obligations form a first charge on the respondent's estate.

A binding judicial dispute resolution hearing addressing parenting time and decision-making, child support, spousal support, and division of property between unmarried parents.

The applicant sought child support for two children, one of whom was not the respondent's biological child.

The court found the respondent had demonstrated a settled intention to treat the non-biological child as his own and was therefore liable for child support.

The court determined income for both parties, calculated child support obligations, addressed section 7 expenses, dismissed the spousal support claim, denied the respondent's claim for apportionment of rental income, awarded the applicant a 20% equitable interest in a property held solely in the respondent's name, dismissed the respondent's claims regarding business interests, ordered the sale of a jointly owned rental property, and addressed the respondent's line of credit liability.

The accused was charged with first degree murder in the death of his half-brother, which occurred on October 24, 2009.

The Crown alleged that the accused shot his brother with a shotgun following an argument about household cleanliness.

The central issues were whether the accused was not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder, whether he possessed the requisite intent for murder, and whether the killing was planned and deliberate.

The court found the accused suffered from a mental disorder (schizophrenia) but was not rendered incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his acts.

The court found the accused had the requisite intent for murder but was not satisfied the killing was planned and deliberate.

The accused was convicted of second degree murder rather than first degree murder.

The respondent brought a motion seeking to set aside a Registrar's Order to Continue, dismiss the application for delay, dismiss the application against the Estate of Nova Joseph Maille and Concentra Trust as Estate Trustee, and appoint an alternative Estate Trustee during litigation.

The motion was dismissed due to the absence of supporting evidence.

The respondent failed to file any affidavit in support of the motion and relied instead on privileged settlement materials and arguments protesting the contents of affidavits filed by other parties without evidentiary foundation.

The court found the motion ill-fated on its merits and ordered the respondent to pay costs to the applicants and the Estate.

The plaintiff brought two motions: (1) to add LEA Consulting Ltd. as a defendant, which proceeded with consent; and (2) to compel the defendant, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, represented by the Minister of Transportation, to answer undertakings and re-attend for continuation of oral examination for discovery at their own expense.

The defendant failed to disclose the involvement of LEA Consulting Ltd., an onsite contract administrator, and relevant documents prior to discovery.

The court found that this failure undermined the purpose and utility of the discovery and granted the motion to compel re-attendance at the defendant's expense.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff in the amount of $4,243.15.

The court considered written submissions on costs following the granting of summary judgment in favour of the defendant, The Corporation of the City of Timmins.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs, while the self-represented plaintiff argued for no costs or, alternatively, costs in his favour for a disclosure motion.

The court reviewed the relevant legal framework, including the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, and found that the defendant was entitled to substantial indemnity costs throughout, given the plaintiff’s prior similar litigation and the defendant’s early offer to settle.

The court adjusted the quantum of costs to reflect partial success on a disclosure motion and awarded a total of $80,631.57 to the defendant.

The decision addresses motions for a representative order and for an interlocutory injunction in the context of the de-rostering of patients from a community health centre in Sault Ste.

Marie.

The plaintiff, Michael Da Prat, sought to represent both subscribers and non-subscribers of the Group Health Centre, challenging the de-rostering as a breach of contract, a violation of the Human Rights Code, and as oppressive conduct under corporate statutes.

The court granted a representative order only for the breach of contract claim on behalf of subscribers, denied it for other claims and for non-subscribers, and refused the interlocutory injunction, finding no strong prima facie case or irreparable harm.

This endorsement addresses a case conference during an ongoing trial, where both parties sought to admit further evidence.

The court set out a process for the parties to attempt consent on the admission of new documents, established a timetable for the exchange of motion materials, and clarified that all communications should be between counsel of record or self-represented parties.

The court also outlined procedures for cross-examination on affidavits and provided for further case management as needed.

The applicant sought a bail review under s.520 of the Criminal Code, challenging a prior detention order.

The court found new evidence demonstrating a material change in circumstances, allowing the review.

However, the applicant's updated bail plan, particularly concerning unstable housing and proximity to a prohibited person, failed to satisfy the secondary grounds for release, leading to the continued detention of the applicant for public safety.

This endorsement arises from a case management conference concerning the defendants' summary judgment motion.

The court addressed disagreements between the parties regarding the timetable and the filing of evidence, particularly concerning examinations of non-party witnesses under Rule 39.03.

The judge clarified the purpose of the pre-motion conference and ruled on the admissibility of additional evidence post-conference and after Rule 39.03 examinations, adopting the reasoning from Martin v. Kiewit Alarie A Partnership.

A detailed timetable for the motion was ordered.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's 2,250-page affidavit, filed in response to a summary judgment motion, arguing it contained inadmissible hearsay and irrelevant evidence.

The court granted the defendants' request, striking the affidavit in its entirety with leave for the plaintiff to file a fresh affidavit.

The decision emphasized that the affidavit was prejudicial to a fair hearing and an abuse of process due to its voluminous and inadmissible content, providing specific directions on evidentiary requirements for summary judgment motions.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside a prior order striking his pleadings and to release his share of matrimonial home sale proceeds.

The applicant cross-moved to dismiss the respondent's motion.

The court, applying principles that striking pleadings is an exceptional remedy, found that the respondent's partial compliance with undertakings and the importance of maintaining the adversarial process in family law warranted setting aside the order, albeit with conditions for full disclosure.

The court also ordered the release of a portion of the respondent's funds held in trust, determining there were sufficient remaining funds to cover potential equalization payments.

The matter was adjourned for further proceedings and compliance review.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following an application that determined the rights of a landlord and tenant under a lease agreement.

The applicant, 2327451 Ontario Inc., was partially successful on jurisdictional issues and successful on the interpretation of a restrictive covenant, but unsuccessful on other claims.

The court, applying the principles of mixed success under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $17,934.53, finding that litigation was a necessary step despite no formal settlement offers.