Kerry Lee McVey

The plaintiff, a property developer, moved for default judgment against the defendant for failing to close on an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The defendant defaulted on deposit payments and did not respond to communications or defend the action.

The plaintiff terminated the agreement, remarketed the property, and resold it at a lower price due to a market downturn.

The court granted default judgment to the plaintiff for damages representing the shortfall from the resale, plus legal and real estate fees, after finding the defendant breached the agreement and the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to mitigate losses.

Costs were also awarded to the plaintiff.

The Crown brought an application under section 715.1 of the Criminal Code to admit two video-recorded statements of a 13-year-old complainant (F.T-G.) in a sexual assault case.

The respondent opposed, arguing the statements were not taken within a reasonable time, did not adequately describe the alleged acts, and their admission would interfere with the proper administration of justice due to issues like leading questions, external influence, and the complainant's expressed animus.

The court found that the statements met the statutory preconditions, were taken within a reasonable time given the nature of child abuse disclosures, and sufficiently described the acts complained of.

The court dismissed the respondent's arguments regarding the administration of justice, emphasizing that concerns about memory frailties, leading questions, or external discussions generally go to the ultimate reliability of the evidence, not its admissibility.

The court ruled that the statements would be admitted at trial, provided the complainant adopts them, with the caveat that any presumptively inadmissible similar fact evidence must be vetted.

The applicants, maternal grandparents, sought an interim contact order for their three grandchildren under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondents, the biological parents, had terminated all contact in October 2021, alleging the grandparents repeatedly tried to undermine their relationship with the children and caused psychological distress.

The court denied the grandparents' motion for interim relief, finding that the parents' decision to terminate contact was not arbitrary but was a reasoned, incremental response motivated by the children's emotional needs, given the grandparents' consistent disregard for boundaries and attempts to interfere with parental authority.

The court emphasized the high deference owed to parental decision-making unless parents are found to be acting arbitrarily.

The mother proceeded to an uncontested trial on financial issues after the father's pleadings were struck for his repeated failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court imputed an annual income of $200,000 to the father and ordered him to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses.

The court also ordered an equalization payment to the mother and awarded her $100,000 in compensatory and aggravated damages for the father's prolonged and severe intimate partner violence.

The father was ordered to secure his support obligations with a life insurance policy.

S.D. pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm on her 12-year-old daughter and assault on her four-year-old son.

The Crown appealed the sentencing judge's decision to grant a conditional discharge with three years probation, arguing that the judge prioritized rehabilitation over denunciation and deterrence, and that the sentence was demonstrably unfit.

The Superior Court dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding no error in principle and that the sentence, while exceptionally lenient, was not demonstrably unfit given the unique and extensive mitigating circumstances, including the offender's mental health crisis and significant stressors.

In a return motion concerning a high-conflict family law matter, the respondent mother sought to maintain sole decision-making and no contact for the applicant father with their eldest child, Abi, due to the father's alienating behavior.

The mother also sought primary care of their younger child, Sammy, and sole decision-making for Sammy on health and tutoring, plus an order for the father to pay half of reunification counseling costs.

The court found the father lacked sufficient insight into his manipulative conduct that contributed to Abi's estrangement.

The court maintained the temporary order granting the mother sole decision-making for Abi and prohibiting father's contact, contingent on the father's meaningful engagement in reunification counseling.

The week-about parenting schedule for Sammy was maintained, but the father was ordered to take Sammy to appointments, and both parents were restricted on phone usage for Sammy.

The father was ordered to pay half of the reunification counseling costs.

A police officer and her children sued the Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) and several officers, as well as a lawyer designated to prosecute her, for civil conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, negligence, defamation, and abuse of non-criminal proceedings.

The DRPS defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the dispute fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitration due to a collective agreement.

The lawyer defendant (Johnstone) moved to strike the claim against him for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, among other grounds.

The court dismissed the DRPS defendants' motion, finding that the essential character of the dispute, involving alleged police misconduct targeting the plaintiff and her family in their private capacities, transcended the collective agreement.

However, the court granted Johnstone's motion to strike, finding the pleadings against him did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and refused leave to amend.

The plaintiff, Caivan (Renaud) Inc., brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants, Maroof Khan and Mujahid Khan, for their failure to close on an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a new-build townhome.

The defendants failed to retain a lawyer or take steps to finalize the transaction.

The plaintiff terminated the agreement, re-listed the property, and mitigated its damages by reselling it at a lower price.

The court found that the defendants breached the agreement and that the plaintiff had made reasonable and timely efforts to mitigate its losses.

Default judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the shortfall in the sale price, plus ancillary costs and prejudgment interest.

The Applicants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully securing the reinstatement of their commercial tenancy.

The court found the Respondent's conduct during the lease termination and litigation to be reprehensible and high-handed, justifying an elevated costs award.

Despite the Applicants not filing a Bill of Costs, the court fixed costs at $25,000, all inclusive, payable by the Respondent, considering the reasonableness of counsel's time, the significance of the issues, the Applicants' full success, and their reasonable offers to settle.

The applicants, a tenant and its sole shareholder, sought reinstatement of their commercial lease after the respondent landlord locked them out.

The landlord alleged breaches related to staff conduct (public intoxication, nuisance) and purported to terminate the lease.

The court found that the landlord failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirements under section 19(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act, rendering the termination unlawful.

Alternatively, the court would have granted relief from forfeiture under section 20(1) of the Act due to the disproportionate nature of the termination, the non-wilful breach, and the landlord's heavy-handed conduct.

The lease was declared to be in full force and effect, and the applicants were awarded damages equivalent to four months' rent.

This is an appeal from an interlocutory decision that declined to order the production of unredacted medical records.

The underlying action involves a personal injury claim where the plaintiff experienced a psychotic episode, and their medical records contained delusions about third parties.

The respondents had redacted these specific details from the records.

The appeal court upheld the associate judge's decision, finding that the redacted content was irrelevant to the diagnosis or severity of the psychotic episode and that there was a valid reason (protection of innocent third parties, including a minor, from stigma) for the non-disclosure.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.