Kenneth E. Pedlar

The self-represented applicant brought an application seeking a declaration that various tax and municipal statutes violated her Charter rights, claiming $4 million in damages and tax refunds, and absolute title to her property free of taxes and laws.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the application to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting it relied on cherry-picked legal principles and ignored Section 1 of the Charter.

The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

On a motion to change a family law order, the moving party sought to reduce child support arrears to zero and have each parent assume their own childcare costs under a shared parenting arrangement.

The responding party sought retroactive child support, adjustments to ongoing support based on updated incomes, and a change from joint custody to sole custody or primary residence with her.

The court reviewed the parties’ historical incomes, recalculated support obligations for prior years, and determined retroactive support and arrears.

The court also addressed the sharing of section 7 expenses, including daycare and extracurricular activities, on a proportional basis under the Child Support Guidelines.

Although the court expressed serious concerns about parental conflict and the impact on the children, it declined to alter the existing custody arrangement without a fuller evidentiary record.

The moving party, the deceased's grandson and sole beneficiary, sought to be appointed as estate trustee pursuant to the deceased's will.

The respondent, who claimed to be the deceased's secret spouse, objected to the appointment based on the moving party's criminal record and a conflict of interest, as the respondent intended to make equalization and support claims against the estate.

The court found that while the moving party's criminal past alone might not disqualify him, his position as sole beneficiary created a significant conflict of interest with the respondent's claims against the estate.

The court passed over the moving party and appointed the lawyer who drafted the will as an independent estate trustee.

Following a successful motion for interim spousal and child support, the applicant sought costs of the motion.

The court noted that the applicant obtained an award exceeding the amount contained in her offer to settle, while the respondent made no formal offer to settle and failed to respond to the applicant’s written costs submissions within the time set by the court.

The court found the draft Bill of Costs reasonable.

Costs were therefore awarded in favour of the applicant in the amount claimed.

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of the motion forthwith.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal and child support following separation in a high‑income family with multiple jointly owned businesses and properties in Canada and the United States.

The respondent asserted that his income had dropped dramatically in the current year due to health issues, labour disruptions affecting the primary business, and business complications following separation.

The court found the financial disclosure inadequate and rejected the claimed income reduction, instead imputing an interim income of $600,000 to the respondent based on historical earnings.

The applicant was found to have no current income due to termination from the family businesses and inability to work while temporarily residing in Florida.

Interim support was ordered including child support of $3,000 per month and spousal support of $18,000 per month retroactive to July 1, 2012.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the court determined whether an infant should remain with the mother or be placed with the father.

The evidence included a long history of child protection involvement concerning the mother, prior custody losses of several children, concerns about relationships exposing children to risk, and a parenting capacity assessment identifying ongoing issues with insight and responsibility.

The father had no protection history and had been caring for the child for approximately one year with support from extended family, during which the child was thriving.

The court found the child to be in need of protection while in the mother’s care pursuant to s. 37(2)(b)(g) of the Child and Family Services Act.

Considering the best interests factors under s. 37(3), the court ordered custody to the father without supervision and granted the mother conditional access.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from a costs order awarding substantial indemnity costs against it after its unsuccessful motion for summary judgment.

The underlying motion involved a dispute over an alleged energy supply contract and claims of overcharging, where the plaintiff’s affidavit evidence conflicted with recorded telephone evidence and cross-examination testimony.

The motions judge had found the plaintiff acted unreasonably by bringing the summary judgment motion prematurely and by advancing misleading and contradictory affidavit evidence, warranting substantial indemnity costs under Rules 20.06 and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

On the leave motion, the court held the plaintiff failed to meet the criteria in Rule 62.02(4) because there was no conflicting authority and no reason to doubt the correctness of the costs ruling.

Leave to appeal the costs order was therefore refused.

A parent brought a status review application seeking reinstatement of access to three children who had previously been made Crown wards without access under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court applied s. 59(2.1), which requires proof that the relationship between the parent and the child is beneficial and meaningful and that access would not impair the child’s prospects for adoption.

Expert evidence indicated that renewed access risked emotional harm and could undermine adoption prospects.

Despite evidence that the parent had improved her parenting circumstances with other children, the court found the statutory test was not met for any of the children.

The application to restore access was therefore denied.