Kristjanson

The parties separated in 2013 after a 14-year marriage.

The applicant sought child support, section 7 expenses, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent, who went on long-term disability in 2015, also sought spousal support.

The court determined the respondent's income based on his long-term disability benefits and the applicant's income based on her corporate earnings, adjusting for personal benefits.

The court ordered table child support and allocated section 7 expenses proportionally.

Both claims for spousal support were dismissed as neither party suffered economic disadvantage from the marriage.

The court also resolved numerous disputes regarding equalization of net family property and post-separation adjustments for jointly owned real estate, ultimately ordering the applicant to pay the respondent a net amount of $76,876.51.

The respondent mother brought a motion to vary an interim access order that required her to transport the parties' 19-month-old child from Windsor to Toronto for weekend access with the applicant father.

The mother argued that the child's age, winter driving conditions, and the child's familiarity with the father's home constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no material change in circumstances that would justify varying the interim order, and noted that the mother had unilaterally removed the child from Toronto to Windsor prior to the initial order.

The appellant father appealed a final restraining order that prohibited him from attending within 500 metres of the respondent mother's home, work, church, or college, and their child's school or daycare.

The appellant argued the order should include a knowledge requirement since he did not know the addresses, and challenged the motions judge's imposition of preconditions (remorse and counselling) for reviewing the order.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the knowledge requirement ground as it was raised for the first time on appeal, but struck the preconditions, finding the motions judge breached procedural fairness by imposing them without notice and exceeded his jurisdiction under the Family Law Act.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for sole custody and a graduated access schedule for her two children, who reside with her in Ontario.

The respondent father, residing in Italy, failed to exercise access for 19 months and initiated criminal abduction proceedings against the mother in Italy.

The court found that the father was validly served in Italy by a private process server under Article 10(c) of the Hague Convention on Service Abroad.

The court granted default judgment, awarding sole custody to the mother and ordering a graduated access schedule for the father in Ontario, finding it in the children's best interests.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant, a cousin and former employee, for trespass, conversion, and breach of confidence following a theft at their home.

The court found that the defendant, acting in concert with the plaintiffs' housekeeper, used confidential information about the home's security and the location of valuables to enter the home and steal jewelry, cash, and a security system.

The court relied on circumstantial evidence, including extensive phone records between the defendant and the housekeeper, and found the defendant's testimony lacked credibility.

The defendant was held liable and ordered to pay compensatory damages for the stolen items and $5,000 in punitive damages.

The plaintiff staffing agency brought a motion for summary judgment for unpaid invoices relating to temporary workers provided to the defendant.

The defendant admitted liability for the invoices but raised an equitable set-off defence, alleging the plaintiff was negligent or breached the contract in relation to a prior fraudulent scheme orchestrated by the defendant's own manager involving 'phantom labourers'.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the equitable set-off defence failed because the prior fraudulent invoices were not sufficiently closely connected to the unpaid invoices to directly impeach the plaintiff's claim.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking to enforce a non-competition clause against a former software developer who resigned to work for a competitor.

The defendants brought cross-motions seeking a declaration that the clause was void.

The court found the matter appropriate for partial summary judgment.

The court held that the non-competition clause was overly broad in its scope of prohibited activities, geographic scope, and temporal scope, and was ambiguous.

The clause was declared unreasonable, unenforceable, and void ab initio.

The applicant tenant sought a declaration that its commercial lease was valid and binding on the new owner of the building.

The applicant had signed a new five-year lease with the previous landlord, but the landlord claimed it was never received.

Both parties, however, acted as if the lease were in effect, with the applicant paying increased rent.

The new owner purchased the building and claimed the applicant was a month-to-month tenant, seeking to significantly increase the rent.

The court found that the lease was valid and enforceable through the doctrine of part performance.

Furthermore, the court held that the unregistered lease was binding on the new owner because the new owner was wilfully blind to the existence of the lease during the purchase process.

Following a ten-day trial regarding an estate dispute where success was divided, the parties sought costs.

The applicants sought substantial indemnity costs of over $343,000, while the respondent sought partial indemnity costs of over $172,000.

The court reviewed the modern costs rules governing estates litigation and the indemnification of estate trustees.

Finding that all parties acted unreasonably in certain respects, were motivated by self-interest, and that the litigation fees were disproportionate to the estate's value, the court declined to award costs for legal fees to any party.

However, the court ordered that the $53,000 disbursement for the forensic accountant's report be paid to the applicants from the estate.

Aviva appealed an arbitrator's decision in a priority dispute which found that Aviva was the priority insurer for accident benefits because it failed to prove the claimant was the 'spouse' of a driver insured by Security National.

Aviva argued the claimant and the driver were married in a foreign religious ceremony.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator's decision was reasonable.

The court found that Aviva bore the burden of proof and failed to provide sufficient evidence of the date, place, or legal validity of the foreign marriage under the lex loci celebrationis.

The moving party sought partial indemnity costs of $88,608.95 plus disbursements following a successful motion to convert the responding party's application into a counterclaim in a separate action.

The court found the costs claimed to be clearly excessive and noted the moving party failed to separate the costs of the motion from the costs of the application.

Agreeing with the responding party, the court ordered that the costs of the motion be awarded in the cause, as the merits had yet to be adjudicated and the work product would be used at trial.

Fountain Asset Corp. brought an application to enforce contractual rights to share options and warrants issued by First Global Data Limited.

First Global Data defended on the basis that the options and warrants were granted as part of a financing transaction bearing a criminal rate of interest.

First Global Data brought a motion to convert the application to an action and consolidate it with a recently commenced 2017 Action.

The court granted the motion, finding that material facts were in dispute, expert evidence was required, and there was a significant risk of inconsistent verdicts if the application proceeded separately.

The claims in the application were directed to be advanced as a counterclaim in the 2017 Action.

The applicants, granddaughters of the deceased, brought an action against the respondent, their aunt, seeking to set aside a 2008 agreement that transferred the deceased's interest in her home and pension income to the respondent in exchange for lifelong care.

The respondent had acted under a power of attorney for property.

The court found that the deceased lacked capacity to enter the agreement and that the respondent breached her fiduciary duties under the Substitute Decisions Act by making a transfer that was not 'reasonably necessary' for the deceased's care.

The agreement was set aside, and the respondent was ordered to return the property interest to the estate and account for commingled funds.

However, the court recognized the extraordinary care the respondent provided to the deceased and awarded her $273,039.54 in quantum meruit compensation as an equitable set-off against the estate.

The court declined to remove the respondent as an estate trustee or award punitive damages.

The defendants appealed a Master's decision finding they had partially waived solicitor-client privilege during an examination for discovery.

The underlying dispute involved whether the plaintiff was entitled to shares or stock options upon termination of employment.

During discovery, the individual defendant stated he had told others his lawyer 'botched' the documents.

The Master ruled this waived privilege over the instructions given to the lawyer.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal, holding that solicitor-client privilege is a substantive rule of law and that a partial waiver based on a discovery answer must be voluntary, informed, and clear.

The court found the defendants had not put their state of mind or reliance on legal advice in issue in their pleadings, and thus no implied or partial waiver occurred.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a civil claim for sexual assault, battery, and breach of fiduciary duty against her former criminal lawyer.

The defendant had previously pleaded guilty to criminal assault for the same incident but filed no evidence on the summary judgment motion, citing his Alzheimer's diagnosis.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial on liability, as the defendant conceded the facts supporting the criminal conviction.

The court refused to adjourn the motion for a defence medical due to the defendant's delay.

The court awarded the plaintiff $70,000 in general non-pecuniary damages and $5,000 for future therapy costs.

The self-represented plaintiff sought leave to discontinue his action under Rule 23.01(2), claiming to be a person under a disability, with the intention of starting a new application based on the same 2013 events.

The court noted that the plaintiff misunderstood the procedural consequences, as a new application would likely be statute-barred.

Applying the CJC Statement of Principles on Self-Represented Litigants, the court explained the relevant law and procedural options to the plaintiff.

The court found the plaintiff was not a person under a disability within the meaning of the Rules and therefore did not require leave to discontinue.

The motion for leave was declined, and the plaintiff was given a deadline to either move for late filing of a statement of claim or discontinue the action.

The self-represented plaintiffs by counterclaim brought a summary judgment motion against the defendants by counterclaim, which was withdrawn mid-argument after the husband admitted he lacked his wife's authority to proceed.

The defendants by counterclaim sought costs and directions to prevent further steps until outstanding costs were paid.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs against the husband for unreasonable conduct, including collateral attacks on previous judgments and breaching the implicit warranty of authority.

The court also issued directions prohibiting the plaintiffs by counterclaim from taking further steps without leave or until costs were paid, and barred the husband from representing his wife.

The appellants appealed an arbitration decision that dismissed their claim for rectification of a unanimous shareholders' agreement.

The appellants argued that the right of first offer clause contained a mutual mistake by allowing a partial take-up of shares, and sought to rectify it to require an all-or-nothing purchase.

The arbitrator found no prior common intention to support rectification.

On appeal, the court held that the issues raised by the appellants were questions of fact or mixed fact and law, not extricable questions of law.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The moving party obtained a judgment for conversion against a lending corporation that unlawfully seized his equipment.

After the corporation declared bankruptcy, the moving party brought an action against the corporation's insurers under s. 132(1) of the Insurance Act.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that the tort of conversion involves interference with possessory rights, which does not constitute 'injury or damage to property' within the meaning of s. 132(1).

The claim was characterized as pure economic loss, which is not recoverable under the provision.

The moving party brought a motion for contempt against the respondent for failing to comply with two previous court orders requiring him to produce financial documents and attend an examination in aid of execution regarding an unpaid judgment.

The court applied the three-part test for civil contempt and found the respondent intentionally breached the clear and unequivocal orders despite having actual knowledge of them.

The respondent was found in contempt, ordered to pay substantial indemnity costs, and given an opportunity to purge his contempt before the penalty hearing.