Kofi Barnes

The Ontario Children's Lawyer (OCL) sought leave to appeal a $20,000 costs order made against it following a custody trial.

The Divisional Court first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the costs order itself constituted a 'single payment' under $50,000 pursuant to s. 19(1.2)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court granted the OCL an extension of time to file its notice of motion, finding the brief delay reasonable.

Finally, the court granted leave to appeal, concluding that whether a court-appointed third party like the OCL has an obligation to seek court intervention when a party refuses to cooperate is a matter open to serious debate and of general public importance.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, which alleged breach of contract, fraud, and negligence regarding legal services provided in India.

The defendants sought to strike claims for punitive damages and allegations that they conducted an illegal business in Canada.

The court granted the motion, finding that the pleadings lacked sufficient particulars to support the claims for punitive damages and the allegations of illegal business operations.

The impugned paragraphs were struck with leave to amend.

The respondent moved to change a final child support order, seeking termination of support for their 19-year-old son and a refund of alleged overpayments.

The applicant opposed and cross-moved for retroactive section 7 expenses.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the child's equal residency with both parents and his no longer being a "child of the marriage" under the Divorce Act, as he was gainfully employed part-time and lacked definitive plans for full-time education despite an anxiety diagnosis.

Child support and life insurance provisions were terminated effective August 1, 2017.

The applicant was ordered to refund $4,500 in child support overpayments, while her claim for section 7 expenses was dismissed due to insufficient credible evidence from both parties, who were criticized for their high conflict and undue pressure on their son.

The plaintiff, Falcon Lumber Limited, brought a motion seeking an order for full disclosure of business, corporate, and financial records from defendants GN Trim and Doors Ltd. and Surinder P. Lotey.

The plaintiff alleged unjust enrichment and sought to pierce the corporate veil, arguing the documents were relevant to determine why payment for goods was withheld and the financial relationships between the defendants.

The defendants argued the documents were irrelevant to a simple collection case.

The court found the documents relevant to the issues of unjust enrichment and piercing the corporate veil, given the allegations of collusion and the circumstances surrounding the cessation of GN Trim's operations and a cancelled asset sale.

The motion for disclosure was granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' Affidavit of Documents or, alternatively, their Statement of Defence, alleging that the defendants fabricated emails central to their defence.

The court found that the defendants deliberately included fabricated documents in their Affidavit of Documents, constituting an abuse of the court's process and an affront to the integrity of justice.

The court granted the motion, striking the defendants' Statement of Defence and ordering them to pay the plaintiff's costs.

The applicants, Anisur and Sharmin Sikder, brought a motion for summary judgment against Carol Jesseau regarding deficiencies in a purchased residential property, for which their insurer sought subrogated reimbursement.

The respondent, Ms. Jesseau, sought leave to amend her pleadings.

The court found genuine issues requiring a trial concerning whether consideration was provided for a "Warranties and Bill of Sale" document signed by Ms. Jesseau and whether the action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act.

The court granted Ms. Jesseau leave to amend her pleadings and ordered further amplification of the record through viva voce evidence to resolve the enforceability of the Warranty.

Christopher Bryan was on trial for importing cocaine.

The Crown sought to admit Jennifer McGrath's passport application to corroborate her testimony and to show Bryan acted as guarantor in furtherance of a conspiracy.

The defence opposed, arguing hearsay, late notice under s. 30 of the Canada Evidence Act (CEA), and prejudice.

The court ruled that Ms. McGrath's statements on the first page of the application were admissible as she adopted them in testimony.

However, the full passport application and affidavit were not admissible under s. 30 CEA due to late notice and resulting prejudice to the defence.

Section 2, the "Declaration of Guarantor" allegedly completed by Bryan, was admissible under the admissions exception to the hearsay rule, with concerns about the unsavoury witness (McGrath) going to weight, not admissibility.

The defence's request for a mistrial was denied.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury action, arguing it was statute-barred due to the commencement of a second action outside the presumptive limitation period.

The plaintiff resisted and brought a cross-motion for leave to amend her statement of claim to plead discoverability.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the discoverability of threshold injuries under the Insurance Act was a genuine issue for trial, and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend her pleading.

The court found the prior unserved action irrelevant to the limitation period analysis of the served action.

The plaintiff, Keen Landscaping Inc., sued the self-represented defendant, Ann Marie Stewart, under the Construction Lien Act for unpaid work related to the installation of a fiberglass pool and associated landscaping.

The defendant disputed the corporate entity, contract terms, and quality of work.

The court found that the defendant knew she was contracting with a corporate entity and that a contract existed, evolving through various proposals.

The total contract price was determined to be $87,014.52, with an outstanding balance of $46,580.97.

The court found the plaintiff substantially completed the project, but noted two deficiencies: oozing glue from patio stones and non-compliant patio steps, requiring a further hearing to determine rectification costs.

The court issued an amended case management endorsement addressing procedural issues for a judicial review application sought by the appellant.

The endorsement struck the March 3, 2017 proceedings related to setting a date for the judicial review application and vacated the April 18, 2017 return date.

The parties were directed to contact the trial coordinator to set a new hearing date before another judge to consider the procedural issues.

The court emphasized the principle of finality and the remediation order from September 30, 2016, which was determinative of the underlying appeal.

The Appellant appealed the Chief Building Official's (CBO) decision to revoke a building permit for a two-family dwelling, arguing his property was zoned differently or that its legal non-conforming use status exempted him from seeking zoning variations.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the matter largely res judicata due to previous appeals upholding the CBO's decision.

On the merits, the court determined that the proposed construction constituted an extraordinary intensification of use, exceeding the scope of legal non-conforming protection.

Consequently, the Appellant was required to seek zoning variations from the Committee of Adjustments, as such relief falls outside the CBO's authority.

The Superior Court of Justice issued a costs endorsement following an appeal and subsequent motion to reopen.

The appellant had appealed a building permit revocation, which was upheld by both the Superior Court and Divisional Court.

The appellant then successfully moved to reopen the appeal to introduce new evidence (Exhibit H), but the court found Exhibit H to be fraudulent.

The court dismissed the appellant's new arguments as *res judicata* and on their merits.

Due to the appellant's conduct, including presenting a fraudulent document and making unproven allegations, the court awarded full indemnity costs of $50,976.96 plus interest to the respondents.

The plaintiff, Keen Landscaping Inc., sued the defendant, Ann Marie Stewart, for unpaid pool installation costs.

The court previously ruled in favour of the plaintiff but identified two deficiencies requiring rectification: non-compliant patio steps and oozing glue from patio stones.

This ruling determined the costs of these rectifications.

The court found that the property's grading was altered by the pool installation, requiring a grading certification that the plaintiff failed to obtain.

The defendant's proposed rectification plan, including a complete rebuild of the patio steps and a grading certification, was largely accepted, with an adjusted cost of $21,413.50 (including HST).

This amount was credited to the defendant, reducing the balance owing to the plaintiff from $43,580.97 to $22,167.47.

The defendants sought to vary previous cost orders to include Peter Merrill, a non-party and owner of the plaintiff corporations, on grounds of fraud and abuse of process.

The court found that the plaintiffs' underlying action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and that a fraudulent undertaking regarding financial capacity was given to the court during an interlocutory injunction motion.

The court granted the defendants' motion, amending the cost orders to include Peter Merrill personally, finding that the due diligence requirement for new evidence was dispensed with due to allegations of fraud.

The applicant, facing multiple criminal charges including fraud over $5,000, sought a Rowbotham Order for publicly funded counsel.

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to prove indigence, having provided inconsistent and dishonest financial information to Legal Aid Ontario and the court.

The court found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility, thereby failing the second criterion of the Rowbotham test.

The Respondents (City of Brampton and CBO) brought a motion alleging the Appellant (Ahmed Elbasiouni) was in contempt of a prior court order regarding property remediation and zoning variances.

The court found the Appellant technically in breach of the order because his applications to the Committee of Adjustments (COA) and Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) did not seek the specific variances contemplated by the order.

However, due to confusion arising from discussions between the Appellant and the CBO without the City's counsel, and the lack of court leave to vary the original order, the court dismissed the contempt motion.

The court emphasized the need for finality in the three-year-old matter and directed the parties to engage in further discussions to determine the way forward for remediation, with strict adherence to a new timetable.

The self-represented appellant appeared before the court to set a date for a judicial review of an Ontario Municipal Board decision regarding a building permit revocation and zoning non-compliance.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application on the technicality that it was commenced under the wrong court file number.

The court denied the request for dismissal, ordered the court office to assign a new file number, directed the production of a video recording of a Committee of Adjustment meeting, and clarified the remediation timetable from a previous order.

The applicant sought to lift a stay on his motion to change a final order.

The stay had been imposed due to his failure to comply with previous court orders, specifically the payment of costs.

The court found the applicant in breach of the previous order, as costs cannot be collected as support by the Family Responsibility Office without an explicit court order.

The court varied the previous order, lifting the stay conditionally upon the applicant paying $172,156.44 in accumulated costs from Ontario and foreign jurisdictions, and explicitly ordered these costs to be enforceable as support.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's slip and fall claim.

The plaintiff alleged she slipped on liquid on the floor, while the defendant argued there was no liquid and it had a reasonable system of inspection.

The court granted the defendant leave to bring the motion after the action was set down for trial.

However, the court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding credibility, whether there was liquid on the floor, and whether the defendant's employees actually followed the system of inspection.

Patricia Morgan was charged with importing cocaine.

A voir dire was held to determine the voluntariness and admissibility of statements she made to Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officers.

The court excluded most statements made to CBSA officers due to unreliable recording and lack of context, but admitted the audio/video recorded statement made to an RCMP officer, finding it voluntary and not induced by promises of release or passport return.