Kenneth E. Pedlar

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, an advance on equalization, and disclosure.

The court imputed additional income to the respondent under sections 18 and 19 of the Child Support Guidelines, finding that his employer paid personal expenses and that he had access to dividend income from a holding company despite an alleged estate freeze.

The court set the respondent's income at $180,000 and ordered interim child support, spousal support, and a $30,000 advance on equalization to allow the applicant to fund the litigation.

The applicant brought a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home and a reduction in interim child and spousal support due to a material change in circumstances.

The respondent had failed to obtain the necessary financing to buy out the applicant's interest in the home as required by a previous consent order.

The court ordered the matrimonial home to be listed for sale forthwith.

The court also found a material change in circumstances due to the applicant's health issues and reduced income, and ordered a reduction in interim spousal and child support.

The respondent municipality was successful in defending an application and sought costs of $7,689.00 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants argued costs should be denied because the respondent introduced facts in its factum regarding the existence of private parks that were not included in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

The court rejected this argument, noting the applicants had addressed the issue and could have easily verified the public record prior to the hearing.

The court awarded the respondent its claimed costs of $7,689.00.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, as well as repayment of funds from a joint cheque and damages for increased financing costs.

The court imputed incomes for both parties, ordering the respondent to pay $846.73 in monthly child support and $400 in monthly spousal support.

The court also ordered the respondent to repay $10,875.36 via a pension transfer, but dismissed the applicant's claim for increased financing costs, finding the respondent's delay in transferring title was justified by his consumer proposal.

Property owners sought declarations that a proposed paintball facility on land zoned “rural” was a permitted use under a municipal zoning by-law.

The municipality maintained the proposed use constituted a commercial recreational activity requiring rezoning.

Applying modern principles of statutory interpretation to municipal by-laws and considering the zoning by-law within the broader framework of the municipality’s Official Plan, the court held that a “Private Park” under the by-law referred to passive recreational open space intended for limited private use rather than commercial recreation offered to the public.

The court concluded the proposed paintball facility more closely resembled a “Place of Recreation” where recreation is provided for a fee and therefore constituted a new commercial use.

As new commercial uses in the rural designation required a zoning amendment, the applicants’ request for declaratory relief was refused.

The plaintiff was injured in a slip and fall on snow accumulated near a curb in a commercial parking lot.

The property owner and the snow removal contractor brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

Applying the framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the property owner's liability, as there were questions about the parking lot design and the adequacy of the snow removal plan.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against the snow removal contractor, finding it had fulfilled its contractual obligations.

The plaintiffs, tenants of a commercial property including a motel and restaurant/bar, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction requiring the landlord defendants to repair the premises, an abatement of rent, and relief from forfeiture.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants breached the lease by failing to provide the restaurant/bar in an operational state and failing to repair major structural systems.

The court found the plaintiffs suffered irreparable harm due to ongoing repair expenses and loss of income.

The court granted the injunction, ordered a 50% abatement of rent until repairs are completed, and granted relief from forfeiture, noting the plaintiffs' substantial investment in the property.

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.

The defendants brought a motion under rule 21.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking determination of questions of law before trial.

They argued that the plaintiff farmer’s action for damages arising from a motor vehicle collision was barred under s. 267.6(1) of the Insurance Act because he operated an uninsured all‑terrain vehicle (ATV) on a public road, and that his claim for statutory accident benefits was barred by s. 30(1)(a) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The court held that the ATV, used exclusively in farming operations, qualified as a “self‑propelled implement of husbandry” under the Highway Traffic Act.

As such, it was excluded from the definition of motor vehicle and from Ontario’s compulsory automobile insurance regime.

The plaintiff was therefore not barred from suing the negligent driver and his claim for statutory accident benefits was not foreclosed.

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.

The applicant brought a motion to change a prior consent order seeking sole custody of one child and adjustments to child support obligations.

The central dispute concerned the respondent’s income, as he reported minimal earnings while maintaining a lifestyle suggesting significant financial resources and receiving substantial financial support from a family trust and alleged loans from his mother.

The court found the respondent intentionally underemployed within the meaning of s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines due to his voluntary decision to pursue missionary work despite having greater earning capacity.

Income was imputed based on past earning capacity and financial benefits received from family support.

The court attributed an income of $60,000 annually for child support purposes and ordered equal sharing of future section 7 expenses with proper documentation.

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.