Kurz

The accused was convicted by a jury of criminal harassment after sending 131 unwanted and increasingly threatening text messages to a former intimate partner over a two-week period.

The Crown sought a sentence of time served, which would have equated to penitentiary time given the accused's 22 months in pre-trial custody on an unrelated charge.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the complainant's age and the accused's attempt to control her against mitigating factors including his youth, learning disabilities, and family support.

The court imposed a suspended sentence followed by 24 months of probation.

Following a family law trial with divided success on parenting and financial issues, both parties sought costs.

The applicant sought $250,000, while the respondent argued for no costs or $50,000 in the alternative.

The court reviewed the principles of costs in family law, including the impact of divided success, reasonable behaviour, and offers to settle.

Finding that neither party enjoyed a monopoly on success, neither beat their offers, and neither had a monopoly on reasonable conduct, the court ordered that no costs be payable by either party.

The applicant sought to remove his sister as co-estate trustee of their late father's estate and to order her to vacate the estate's residential property.

The respondent had an option under the will to purchase the property at fair market value but refused to accept the appraised value or vacate the property, living there rent-free.

The court found the respondent's option to purchase had expired and that she was in a conflict of interest that prevented the proper administration of the estate.

The court removed the respondent as estate trustee, vested the estate assets in the applicant as sole trustee, and ordered the respondent to provide vacant possession of the property.

The plaintiff bank brought an ex parte motion for a writ of possession following a judgment.

The motion was supported by an affidavit from a law clerk attaching an unsigned occupancy report prepared by an unnamed author, constituting double or triple hearsay.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, emphasizing that the permissiveness of Rule 39.01(5) does not excuse sloppiness or the admission of unreliable hearsay, especially on an ex parte motion where a duty of candour applies and the order sought would evict individuals from their home.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion seeking to have the applicant father's parenting time supervised after he failed multiple drug tests for cocaine.

The father denied drug use, claiming the positive tests resulted from passive exposure, and relied on letters from his treating addictions physician to support this theory.

The court exercised its gatekeeper function and rejected the physician's opinion on passive ingestion, finding he was a participant expert without toxicological expertise.

Finding strong prima facie evidence of the father's renewed cocaine use and inadequate care, the court ordered that his parenting time be supervised and directed a section 30 parenting assessment.

The parties, a high-income banker and a part-time physician, engaged in a high-conflict family law trial primarily concerning parenting time with their two teenage daughters, spousal support, and the partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The mother alleged family violence and coercive control, while the father alleged parental alienation.

The court found neither extreme applied but noted the mother's diffidence in supporting the father's relationship with the children.

Respecting the children's ages and wishes, the court ordered daytime parenting time for the younger child but did not force the older child to participate.

The court imputed a full-time income of $550,000 to the mother but ordered the father to pay $20,000 per month in spousal support for 12.5 years, alongside $24,661 in monthly child support.

The mother's request for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home was dismissed, and partition and sale were ordered.

The applicant brought an application to have his sister, the respondent, declared a vexatious litigant under s. 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court reviewed a decade-long history of litigation initiated by the respondent against the applicant, their sister, and various lawyers, which included defamation, cyberstalking, and frivolous claims.

The court found that the respondent persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings and conducted proceedings in a vexatious manner.

The application was granted, the respondent was prohibited from instituting further proceedings without leave, and her active Small Claims Court action was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for the immediate return of the parties' 12-year-old child after the respondent father unilaterally withheld the child following a summer visit.

The father had also commenced proceedings in Belleville.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was in Halton, stayed the Belleville proceedings, and ordered the immediate return of the child to the mother's care, noting the father's inappropriate conduct in alienating the child and making unilateral parenting decisions.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an interim order permitting her to relocate with the parties' two children from Oakville to Sarnia.

The respondent father opposed the move, arguing it was premature and would negatively impact the children, particularly one child who has Autism Spectrum Disorder, ADHD, and struggles with transitions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature as more information was required regarding the children's best interests, including a pending decision on the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 2017 consent order, seeking the retroactive reinstatement of indefinite spousal support.

She alleged the respondent breached the order by failing to reconcile her with their estranged children during court-ordered counselling sessions.

The court found that the respondent made no representations promising reconciliation and had complied with the order by attending the sessions and offering parenting updates.

The court held that the applicant herself had refused to attend further meetings, and therefore the respondent did not breach the letter or spirit of the order.

The motion to change was dismissed.

The plaintiff bank, having obtained judgment against the defendants, brought a motion for a reference and judicial sale of the debtor's real property under the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to bypass the standard sheriff's sale process under the Execution Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no special circumstances to justify departing from the legislated sheriff's sale process.

The court emphasized that judicial resources should not be routinely expended on equitable execution processes where a statutory mechanism exists, absent exceptional and compelling reasons.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the corporate defendants for unpaid amounts owing on equipment leases and against the personal defendants on their guarantees.

The defendants argued there were genuine issues for trial, including fundamental breach due to defective equipment, failure to mitigate, bad faith, and issues regarding insurance.

The court found no objective evidence to support the defendants' claims of defective equipment or bad faith.

The court also held that the plaintiff had no duty to mitigate given the liquidated damages clause and that the defendants were contractually responsible for insurance.

Summary judgment was granted for the outstanding amounts.

The defendant brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached between counsel.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing its former lawyer settled the action contrary to instructions and breached his duty of loyalty.

The court reviewed the communications between the plaintiff's principal and its former lawyer, finding the lawyer acted competently, loyally, and upon express instructions to settle.

The court found a binding settlement agreement existed and saw no reason to exercise its discretion to refuse enforcement.

The motion was granted, the action was dismissed, and costs of $10,000 were awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an extension of time to serve the statement of claim and for substituted service.

The court noted a previous error regarding the monetary jurisdiction, acknowledging the claim exceeded the Small Claims Court limit.

The court granted the extension of time for service and ordered substituted service by regular and registered mail.

The applicants, who operated a cannabis retail store in their condominium units, sought to stay a final consent order requiring them to permanently cease their cannabis business.

The applicants argued that a recent condominium owners' meeting, which rejected their request to repeal the condominium's rule prohibiting cannabis sales, was procedurally flawed.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to meet the stringent Carlisle test for staying a final order, as the condominium corporation's conduct was not oppressive or an abuse of process.

The court also found that the applicants failed to meet the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay.

The mother brought a motion for a stay of a term of an interim parenting arbitration award that eliminated the requirement for the father to undergo portable breathalyzer testing four times per day during his parenting time.

The mother sought the stay pending her motion for leave to appeal the award.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald test, emphasizing that in parenting cases, the best interests of the children are paramount.

The court found no serious issue of law, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay, as the arbitrator had found no evidence of alcohol abuse during the father's parenting time.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion for equal shared parenting or expanded unsupervised parenting time.

The respondent mother had unilaterally restricted his parenting time following incidents involving the father's intoxication, excessive noise, and police involvement.

The court found that while the father's substance use was a concern, the mother's unilateral self-help remedies were also inappropriate.

The court ordered an expanded parenting schedule for the father, denied the mother's request for a breathalyzer requirement, but imposed strict conditions prohibiting the father from consuming alcohol or drugs before or during his parenting time, subject to a review in six months.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant homeowners for unpaid amounts under a contract for the construction of a custom home.

The defendants counterclaimed, alleging the plaintiff breached the contract through delays, poor workmanship, and misrepresentations, and argued they were justified in refusing further payments and denying the plaintiff access to the property to fix deficiencies.

The court found that the defendants repudiated the contract by refusing to pay and locking the plaintiff out, while the plaintiff remained willing to complete the work.

The defendants' counterclaim was dismissed, and liability was found in favour of the plaintiff, with damages to be determined at a later hearing.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a collateral mortgage, a share purchase agreement, and a promissory note after the defendants defaulted on payments.

The defendants argued they were entitled to a hold-back or set-off due to alleged financial misconduct by the plaintiff and claims by third-party investors.

The court found no evidence of misconduct and no contractual or legal basis for a set-off.

Summary judgment was granted, with the court applying section 4 of the Interest Act to limit the interest rate on the agreement and note to 5% annually, while enforcing the 1% monthly compound interest on the mortgage.

The plaintiffs moved for an interim order to preserve the proceeds of sale of a property, an accounting of assets, and a sworn statement of assets from the defendants.

This is the second action against the defendant regarding a $250,000 loan.

The plaintiffs allege the defendant used the loan to help pay for a property registered in his former wife's name.

The defendant did not participate in the motion.

The court found insufficient evidence that the plaintiffs' funds were diverted to the property or that the defendant received the proceeds of its sale.

The motion was dismissed against the defendant without prejudice, and dismissed against the former wife on consent that she provide a trust ledger from the property's sale.