Self-represented litigant

This decision resolves the financial issues arising from the separation of Jamilla Jaha and Mabruck Mengele, including the imputation of income, calculation of child and spousal support, and equalization of property.

The court found that the applicant, Ms. Jaha, was intentionally underemployed and imputed income to her accordingly.

The court dismissed her motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and declined to revisit settled parenting and equalization issues.

The court also set out detailed calculations for support arrears and provided for a review of spousal support in three years, in anticipation of the respondent’s retirement.

The respondent, Cynthia Meek, sought declaratory relief to allow her to audio record court appearances, including her upcoming trial, arguing that the Practice Direction requiring leave to record is inconsistent with section 136(2)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act and violates the Charter.

The court found that both the Act and the Practice Direction require judicial discretion for recording requests and are not in conflict.

The motion for declaratory relief was dismissed.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim against his physician for alleged negligent failure to report him to the Ministry of Transportation under the Highway Traffic Act.

The court found the claim lacked expert evidence, was frivolous and without legal merit, and was not statute-barred.

The court declined to award costs against the self-represented plaintiff.

This decision addresses the terms of access between a child, C, his mother, and his siblings in a child protection context.

The court orders liberal, minimally supervised access between C and his mother, and regular sibling access, emphasizing the best interests of the child and the importance of sibling relationships.

The court also clarifies its jurisdiction to designate a child as an access holder under a s. 102 custody order, ensuring the child’s ability to bring an openness application in future adoption proceedings.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action as frivolous under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, The Estate of Brajak James, repeatedly failed to articulate a justiciable issue in its requisition forms, despite multiple opportunities and judicial guidance.

The court found the claims to be unintelligible, lacking legal merit, and in some cases nonsensical or based on irrelevant religious texts.

The action was dismissed without costs.

The court allowed the appeal of Arlene Hastick from a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming the renewal of her Community Treatment Order (CTO) under the Mental Health Act.

The court found that the Board denied Ms. Hastick procedural fairness by repeatedly preventing her from asking relevant questions of her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Banik, and by relying on evidence about her 2016 hospitalization while refusing to allow her to challenge or clarify that evidence.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted Board.

The court considered a motion under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiff’s action as frivolous and vexatious.

The registrar referred the matter to the judge following a request from the defendant’s counsel.

The court reviewed the statement of claim and found it may be frivolous and vexatious, but allowed the plaintiff an opportunity to make submissions before dismissal.

The action was stayed pending the outcome of the written hearing, and the registrar was directed to provide notice and restrict further filings except for the plaintiff’s submissions.

The court considered a motion by the plaintiff, Ashley Francis, to set aside a Registrar’s dismissal order for delay and for summary judgment against the remaining defendants, Robert Schneider and Sherri Hughes.

The court refused to hear the summary judgment motion but granted the motion to set aside the dismissal, subject to a timetable for the action’s progress.

The decision reviews the application of the Reid factors for setting aside a dismissal, the contextual approach to delay, and the balancing of prejudice and public interest in deciding matters on their merits.

The court considered costs following a full settlement in a family law case involving decision-making, parenting time, and child support.

The applicant sought full recovery costs, arguing the final order was nearly identical to her earlier offer to settle and that the respondent acted unreasonably by not responding.

The court found the respondent had, in fact, responded with a detailed offer and that both parties had reasonable positions, with success divided on various issues.

The court determined that full indemnity costs were not warranted, and awarded the applicant $18,000 in costs, finding this amount fair and proportionate given the circumstances and the divided success.

The appellant, Prosper Chenjelani, appealed his conviction for driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg in 100 ml of blood, contrary to s. 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal was based on alleged errors by the trial judge, including the rejection of evidence of racial profiling, the sufficiency of reasons, and the application of the law regarding racial profiling.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the trial judge’s findings and the applicable legal standards, ultimately dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction.

The court fixes costs following the dismissal of Rachel Obita’s action against Algonquin College.

The College was wholly successful on a motion to strike, resulting in the dismissal of the action.

The College sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court reviewed the bill of costs, reduced certain amounts for work by articling students and a clerk, and fixed total costs payable by Ms. Obita at $35,515.00, plus $1,000 for the costs of the costs submissions.

The ruling discusses the principles for awarding costs, especially in cases involving self-represented litigants.

The appellant, Serena Wall, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) order terminating her tenancy for non-payment of rent and arrears, raising issues of repair, maintenance, and procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence but found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the LTB’s decision, and dismissed the appeal.

This endorsement addresses the costs following the Law Society of Ontario’s unsuccessful attempt to place Shahryar Mazaheri’s law practice under trusteeship.

The court reviews the parties’ submissions, the relevant by-laws, and the principles governing costs, ultimately awarding Mr. Mazaheri $2,000 in costs for the main proceeding and $1,500 net after offsetting $500 in costs to the Law Society for the costs proceeding.

The court emphasizes the limited entitlement of self-represented litigants to costs and the absence of grounds for punitive or full indemnity costs.

The applicant, Linda Kulchycki, sought to reinstate a 2008 power of attorney and codicil executed by her mother, Mary Kulchycki, and to set aside new powers of attorney and a will executed by Mary in 2020.

Linda alleged conflicts of interest and improper conduct by the respondents, Nancy and Diana Kulchycki, and the lawyer involved in the 2020 documents.

The court found that Linda provided no evidence of incapacity, undue influence, or mismanagement, and that a will challenge is premature while the testator is alive.

The application was dismissed, and costs were awarded against Linda.

The court dismissed Steven Howell’s defamation action against Tracy Cullen, Manager of Licensing at the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO), as frivolous and vexatious.

The court found that Ms. Cullen was protected by statutory immunity for actions taken in good faith within the scope of her employment, and that Mr. Howell’s claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court also fixed costs against Mr. Howell in the amount of $15,000.

The court considered three motions under the Family Law Rules: one by the applicant to note the respondent in default for failing to respond to a motion to change, and two by the respondent that did not comply with the Rules.

The court granted the respondent a brief extension to comply and struck most of her non-compliant materials.

The decision discusses the respondent's repeated non-compliance, her excuses, and the importance of following procedural rules, especially in family law matters involving children.

This decision concerns a costs award following motions between former spouses regarding parenting and child support.

The respondent father sought full recovery costs after being successful in obtaining primary care of the parties’ three younger children.

The court found that while the father was successful, full indemnity costs were excessive and instead awarded partial indemnity costs, fixed at $22,135.32, enforceable as child support.

The decision reviews the principles governing costs under the Family Law Rules, the parties’ conduct, and the proportionality of the costs claimed.

The court considered a request by Canadian Tire Bank to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court declined to dismiss, finding that the pleadings, read generously, disclosed a core complaint that was not clearly frivolous or abusive.

The court emphasized that rule 2.1 is a blunt instrument reserved for the clearest of cases and is not a substitute for other procedural motions.

The court considered a motion under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous and vexatious.

The statement of claim was found to be very poorly pleaded and would require amendment to allow a response.

The court ordered that the plaintiff be given notice and an opportunity to make submissions as to why the claim should not be dismissed, and stayed the action pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The appellant appealed convictions for non-consensual distribution of intimate images, criminal harassment, extortion by libel, and mischief to computer data.

The appellant, who was self-represented at trial, argued that the trial judge failed to provide sufficient assistance and erred by allowing the trial to proceed without counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial was fair, the judge provided adequate assistance, and the appellant's actions suggested an attempt to delay proceedings rather than a genuine inability to secure counsel.