Kathryn N.M. van Rensburg

The appellant appealed an order declaring a 2015 settlement agreement to be a binding separation agreement.

The appellant argued for the first time on appeal that a provision requiring expert review of the agreement's impact on their disabled child's ODSP eligibility created an implied right to terminate the agreement, and that the court should have exercised its discretion not to enforce it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, declining to entertain novel arguments not raised before the motion judge and finding no basis to interfere with the enforcement of the agreement.

The appellant developer contracted with an electrical contractor to construct two solar energy projects.

The contractor named the appellant as an additional insured under its commercial general liability policy for liability arising out of the contractor's operations.

After fires caused by transformers selected by the appellant, the appellant settled claims with the project purchaser and sought coverage from the insurer.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant's liability did not arise out of the contractor's operations, as the contractor merely installed the transformers chosen by the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a final order in matrimonial proceedings, arguing the trial judge erred by refusing an adjournment, misapprehending evidence regarding support, and failing to impute income to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's refusal to grant an adjournment, noting the appellant had ample notice of the trial date.

The court also upheld the trial judge's findings on spousal and child support, including the imputation of income to the appellant and the refusal to impute income to the respondent.

The appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that a first promissory note, which required repayment of a loan upon the deceased's death, was valid and enforceable, rather than a second note that forgave the loan.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in rejecting witness testimony and finding an email purportedly from the deceased was not sent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's credibility assessments and concluding that the proposed fresh evidence regarding the email did not meet the test for admission and would not have changed the outcome.

The appellant appealed an order adjudging him bankrupt.

The respondent law firm, to whom the appellant owed debts from matrimonial litigation, had issued an application for a bankruptcy order after the appellant's consumer proposal was rejected.

The bankruptcy judge found the appellant owed debts exceeding one thousand dollars and had committed an act of bankruptcy by failing to meet his liabilities as they became due.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the bankruptcy judge's conclusions and dismissed the appeal.

The respondent and the appellant were equal shareholders and directors of a corporation that operated a dairy farm.

The corporation sold its milk quota, and the appellant director used the net proceeds to purchase a property registered in the name of a company owned by his wife, characterizing the transaction as a loan.

The respondent sought an oppression remedy, and the trial judge declared the property was held in constructive trust for the corporation due to the appellant's breach of fiduciary duty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the unauthorized transfer of corporate funds constituted oppressive conduct and that a constructive trust was the appropriate remedy.

The appellant, who had a lengthy history of violent offences against intimate partners, was convicted of attempted murder and choking.

The sentencing judge designated him a dangerous offender and imposed an indeterminate sentence, finding no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public.

On appeal, the appellant argued the judge improperly presumed an indeterminate sentence was required and failed to adequately consider treatment options.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the sentencing judge engaged in a rigorous, individualized assessment of the evidence and properly concluded that the appellant's risk could not be managed in the community.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision affirming a trial judge's order that denied him access to a child placed in extended society care.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the appellant had standing to appeal under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and concluded that determining the appeal on the merits was in the child's best interests.

The Court admitted fresh evidence regarding the child's wishes to be adopted without ongoing access by the appellant.

Finding no error in the courts below and prioritizing the child's best interests, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The appellants, who own and manage the majority of units in a condominium operating as a retirement residence, appealed a summary judgment finding their conduct oppressive under s. 135 of the Condominium Act.

The motion judge found the appellants unfairly prejudiced the respondent minority unit owners by not requiring their own tenants to sign the standard services agreement, allowing the appellants to offer discounted services and gain an unfair marketing advantage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the oppression finding and the costs award, but varied the judgment to ensure it only applied prospectively so as not to affect the rights of current tenants who were not parties to the action.

Following an appeal, the parties agreed on the judgment amount but could not agree on costs.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $20,866.02 based on the standard charge terms of the subject mortgage.

The Court of Appeal awarded the requested amount, finding it fair, reasonable, and proportionate given the appellant's unfounded allegations of fraud and new issues raised on appeal.

Following the release of the appeal judgment, the parties requested on consent to amend the partial indemnity costs of the applications below.

The Court of Appeal allowed the amendment, reducing the costs awarded to the appellants for the proceedings below from $93,000 to $55,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The respondent, having been entirely successful on the appeal of a family law matter, sought partial indemnity costs of $53,407.33.

The appellant argued the costs should not exceed $18,789.66.

The Court of Appeal applied the principle that costs must be fair, reasonable, and proportionate.

Acknowledging the voluminous record and the importance of the issues, including child custody, the court fixed the costs payable by the appellant to the respondent at $35,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

Following a successful appeal, the appellants sought costs of the proceedings in the Superior Court on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondents contested a disbursement for the appellants' expert witness on damages, arguing the expert's evidence was rejected by the application judge as a mere mathematical exercise.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the respondents, finding that disallowing the disbursement did not amount to an improper distributive costs order, and that the expert evidence provided no value as it consisted only of basic calculations using publicly available share prices.

Costs were awarded to the appellants excluding the expert disbursement.

The appellant appealed a partial summary judgment dismissing his tort claims against the police for false arrest, negligent investigation, and other causes of action arising from two separate interactions.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there were reasonable and probable grounds for the appellant's arrest in March 2016, dismissing the claims related to that incident.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred in dismissing the tort claims related to the February 2015 incident, as those claims did not hinge on the reasonable and probable grounds for the later arrest.

The appeal was allowed in part to permit the February 2015 tort claims to proceed alongside the Charter claims.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's order granting sole custody of their daughter to the respondent father, ordering her to pay child support, equalization, and full recovery costs of $249,765.47.

The appellant argued that the trial process denied her natural justice, the credibility assessment was flawed, and the trial judge erred in determining income and post-separation adjustments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's credibility assessment, her focus on the child's best interests, or her financial determinations.

Leave to appeal the costs award was also denied, as the trial judge properly exercised her discretion based on the appellant's bad faith conduct.

The appellant, a ranking creditor, appealed a motion judge's decision that residential condominium purchasers were not obliged to pay the Receiver their proportionate share of the notional value of land conveyed to the City of Toronto to meet the developer's parkland obligations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's interpretation of the standard form Tarion Addendum clause, finding that the term 'parks levy' in the agreement indicated a payment of cash-in-lieu rather than a conveyance of land.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following an appeal where the appellants achieved mixed success, the appellants requested to make written costs submissions, arguing that each side should bear their own costs of the appeal and costs below should be in the cause.

The Court of Appeal affirmed its original costs order, finding that the respondent was more successful on the appeal as the appellants' claim was largely statute-barred.

The original award of $6,500 in appeal costs to the respondent was maintained.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict dismissing their claim against their home insurer following a fire that destroyed their house and its contents.

The insurer denied coverage on the basis that the appellants failed to report a material change in risk (using space heaters instead of a wood stove) and made wilfully false statements in their Proof of Loss.

The Court of Appeal found errors in the trial judge's instructions regarding the material change in risk, but upheld the dismissal of the action because the jury's finding of 39 wilfully false statements vitiated the claim.

The court also upheld the refusal to grant relief from forfeiture due to the appellants' unreasonable conduct.

However, the court allowed the costs appeal, reducing the trial costs awarded to the insurer from $616,843.27 on a substantial indemnity basis to $430,000 on a partial indemnity basis, finding the appellants' conduct in pursuing bad faith claims was not reprehensible enough to warrant an elevated scale.

Following a successful appeal that set aside a summary judgment dismissing the appellants' claim, the respondent sought to vary the costs order.

The respondent argued that the costs of the action unrelated to the summary judgment motion should not be payable since the action would proceed.

The Court of Appeal agreed and amended its previous judgment to vacate the motions judge's costs order and award the appellants $5,447.39 for the costs of the summary judgment motion.

The appellant appealed an order striking his answer and amended answer in a family law proceeding due to his ongoing failure to comply with court orders regarding costs, household expenses, and financial disclosure.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding the appellant's non-compliance to be wilful and egregious.

The court emphasized that striking pleadings is an exceptional remedy but was justified here given the appellant's repeated disregard for his fundamental obligations.

The appeal was dismissed.