Kumaranayake

The moving defendants brought a motion for directions regarding which version of a Reference Plan should be registered on title following a boundary dispute judgment.

The moving defendants argued for an April 2020 draft plan, while the plaintiff and responding title company argued for the June 2020 final plan.

The court found that the surveyor had corrected an error in the draft plan and that the final June 2020 plan accurately reflected the prior judgment.

The motion was dismissed, and the June 2020 plan was ordered to be registered.

Costs were awarded to the responding title company.

The applicant father brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence of the child, and a restraining order against the respondent mother.

The mother, whose whereabouts were unknown and who had not seen the child since 2019 due to severe mental health issues and child protection involvement, did not participate.

The court granted summary judgment for sole decision-making and primary residence, finding it in the child's best interests.

The request for a restraining order was dismissed as there was no evidence of imminent risk, given the mother's prolonged absence.

The non-parties, who occupied the subject property, brought an urgent motion to stay the enforcement of a Writ of Possession and Notice to Vacate obtained by the plaintiff mortgagee against the defendant mortgagor.

The non-parties relied on Rule 21.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the non-parties lacked standing to rely on Rule 21.01(3) as they were not defendants in the mortgage action.

The court also declined to set aside the order granting the Writ of Possession, noting the request was not properly before the court and constituted an impermissible collateral attack.

The accused, an immigration consultant and his IT company, were charged with misrepresentation and counselling misrepresentation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act relating to Syrian refugee sponsorship applications.

At the close of the Crown's case, the accused brought a motion for a directed verdict, arguing there was insufficient evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the Crown had presented circumstantial evidence reasonably capable of supporting inferences of guilt regarding the source of settlement funds and the collection of fees, which must be left to the jury to weigh.

The accused, a 65-year-old woman, was found guilty by a jury of importing 1.522 kilograms of cocaine.

Following numerous adjournments and failures to appear, the court found the accused had absconded and proceeded with sentencing in her absence pursuant to s. 475(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the quantity of cocaine and the nature of the offence against mitigating factors including the accused's age, significant health issues, and personal tragedies.

The court imposed a sentence of 3.5 years, reduced by 12 months for personal circumstances and 24 days for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of 2 years and 156 days incarceration.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to resume his in-person parenting time, which the respondent mother had unilaterally suspended due to concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic and their child's asthma.

The court found the motion urgent and held that the pandemic alone is not a reason to suspend access where appropriate precautions are taken.

Finding no evidence that the children's safety would be compromised, the court ordered the immediate resumption of the applicant's in-person parenting time in accordance with existing orders.

The applicant sought to confirm a provisional order from the Northwest Territories that would terminate child support for his two younger children.

The respondent mother opposed the termination, providing evidence at the confirmation hearing that both children were pursuing post-secondary education and remained dependent.

The court found the children were still children of the marriage and refused to confirm the portions of the provisional order that terminated their support, instead ordering continued monthly child support.

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant sought sole custody, child and spousal support, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent did not appear.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, imputed the respondent's income based on a past tax assessment, and ordered child and spousal support.

The court declined to order exclusive possession of the matrimonial home but ordered its sale, dispensing with the respondent's consent.

The applicant's request for an unequal division of net family property was dismissed due to insufficient evidence, with leave to file further evidence.

Following a motion to strike portions of an amended counterclaim where the moving party achieved mixed but overall greater success, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The moving party sought $7,784.53 on a partial indemnity basis, while the responding party argued for no costs or costs in the cause.

The court found the moving party's claimed fees excessive given the motion's lack of complexity and short duration.

Costs were fixed at $4,235 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable by the responding party within 30 days.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to enforce several outstanding costs orders, transfer ownership of the respondent's business to satisfy an equalization payment, and transfer the collection of a lump sum spousal support award to the Family Responsibility Office (FRO).

The court reviewed the history of costs orders and found that only $2,250 remained outstanding, not the $15,500 claimed by the applicant.

The court ordered that the respondent cannot bring any further motions for leave without proving payment of these costs.

The court dismissed the request to transfer or sell the respondent's business, finding it highly speculative.

Finally, the court deferred the request to transfer collection to the FRO, ordering the applicant to serve the Director of the FRO with notice before a determination could be made.