Kenneth Peacocke

The appellant appealed from the dismissal of her motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing her action for delay.

The parties settled the appeal on consent terms that set aside the registrar's dismissal and the motion judge's orders, reinstated the action, imposed litigation deadlines for documentary discovery, examinations for discovery, and setting the matter down for trial, and provided for dismissal for delay if those deadlines were missed on motion by the respondents.

The court held that the justice of the case warranted allowing the appeal pursuant to the agreed terms.

Appeal costs were fixed at $2,000 payable by the appellant to the respondents, and previously awarded motion costs were reserved to the trial judge.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which found him incompetent, revoked his certificate of registration, and ordered him to pay costs.

The Committee found the appellant had failed to maintain the standard of practice, engaged in professional misconduct by falsifying patient charts, and lacked insight into his deficiencies.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee's findings on incompetence, the penalty of revocation, and the costs award were reasonable and supported by the evidentiary record.

The appellant father appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing his motion to change custody of a 12-year-old child.

The original custody order was made on consent to the mother in 2007.

The father argued that a psychological report ordered under the Children's Law Reform Act established a material change in circumstances affecting the child.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that while the report documented parental conflict and the mother's anger negatively impacting the child, the continuation of parental conflict does not constitute a material change in circumstances.

The court noted that the mother had taken reasonable steps to address the identified issues, including enrolling in parenting programs and increasing the father's time with the child.

The appellant, a disabled former spouse, appealed a motion judge's order reducing her spousal support from $1,500 to approximately $800 per month.

The motion judge had found a material change in circumstances based on the respondent's adoption of his new wife's children, his deteriorating health, and his new wife's inability to work.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors of fact regarding the respondent's health and income, and erred in law by failing to apply the 'first-family-first' principle to the respondent's voluntary assumption of new financial obligations.

The original spousal support order was restored.

The parties separated after a seven-year unmarried relationship.

The trial judge found the respondent had established an unjust enrichment claim regarding the home owned by the appellant, concluding there was a joint family venture, and awarded him $86,500.

The appellant appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing her retroactive child support claim and in finding a joint family venture.

The child support ground was abandoned during the hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the constructive trust claim, finding the trial judge's conclusions on unjust enrichment, joint family venture, and the proportionate damages award were supported by the evidence.

The appellants, owners of private cottages on leased land in a provincial park, appealed a decision declaring them obligated to pay a portion of the grant in lieu of taxes paid by the Crown to the municipality under the Municipal Tax Assistance Act.

The appellants argued that prior lease agreements and correspondence constituted an agreement exempting them from this obligation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's finding that no such agreement existed and affirming the Crown's right to enforce its statutory rights following a change in taxation policy.

The appellant son appealed a judgment setting aside the transfer of his mother's home to him based on non est factum and undue influence, and dismissing his counterclaim for equitable remedies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, noting the mother's limited English, recent widowhood, and lack of independent legal advice.

The counterclaim was properly dismissed due to the appellant's lack of clean hands and prematurity.

The appeal and a related motion were dismissed with costs.