Lauren Bale

The plaintiffs, Lee Anthony Delfino and Standing O Entertainment Group Inc., sued the Intercounty Baseball League and its commissioner, John Kastner, for breach of contract and negligence after their team, the Brantford Red Sox, was eliminated from the 2016 playoffs.

The claim arose from the commissioner’s decision to allow a Toronto Maple Leafs player, Mike Wagner, to participate in the playoffs despite allegations he was ineligible under league rules.

The court found that the league’s governance documents delegated final authority on eligibility to the commissioner, and that his decision was made in good faith and within his discretion.

The court dismissed the claim, holding that there was no breach of contract or negligence, and that the process followed was procedurally fair.

The court considered a motion by Losani Homes (1998) Limited for the partial discharge of a vendor-take-back mortgage over a single subdivided lot (Lot 002) on a development property, pending the outcome of a broader application regarding the parties’ rights and obligations over a parcel known as the Heinbuch land.

The court declined to grant the interim relief, finding no contractual, statutory, or equitable entitlement to a partial discharge, and emphasized the need for the main application to proceed expeditiously.

The respondent father sought leave to bring multiple motions, including recusal of judges, setting aside past endorsements, changing the hearing region, compelling children's school attendance, and enforcing parenting time.

The court reviewed the history of the respondent's litigation conduct, which included excessive and often meritless motions.

The court dismissed most requests for leave, finding them devoid of merit or attempts to relitigate decided issues.

However, leave was granted solely for the enforcement of court-ordered in-person and virtual parenting time, conditional on the parties first engaging in bona fide mediation efforts.

This trial judgment addresses spousal and child support claims following a long-term marriage.

The court determined the reasonableness of the respondent husband's early retirement, declining to impute his pre-retirement income due to mental health and caregiving responsibilities for a disabled child.

The court imputed a modest part-time income to the husband and a modest investment income to the applicant wife from her equalization payment.

It rejected the applicant's claim for retroactive spousal support and the concept of "double-recovery" from the husband's pension, finding the husband to be in greater financial hardship.

Prospective spousal support was awarded at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines based on the imputed incomes.

Child support for the adult child was terminated.

The Family Responsibility Office (FRO) initiated a default hearing against the respondent for significant spousal support arrears.

The court found the respondent failed to rebut the statutory presumption of ability to pay, citing his history of non-compliance and credibility issues from previous proceedings.

The court fixed arrears at $601,895.18 and ordered annual lump sum payments of $10,000, with a 7-day incarceration period for each default.

The court declined the FRO's more ambitious payment plan and the respondent's request for passport return, emphasizing the need to compel compliance rather than punish.

This family trial addressed complex parenting issues, including decision-making authority and parenting time, as well as child and spousal support.

The court found a high level of conflict between the self-represented applicant father and respondent mother, rendering joint decision-making inappropriate for all matters.

Decision-making authority was therefore split: the mother was granted sole authority over medical and educational matters, while the father received sole authority over extracurricular activities, with religion and mental health decisions remaining joint.

The child's primary residence remained with the mother, but the father's parenting time was significantly expanded to include three consecutive overnights.

For support, the court imputed minimum wage income to the mother due to intentional unemployment.

Child support was adjusted based on the father's income, and spousal support was ordered at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, set to terminate on August 31, 2026, with no retroactive adjustments.

The judgment strongly recommended parenting coordination to help the parties manage their ongoing conflict.

This long motion addressed interim parenting and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home in a high-conflict separation involving six children.

The Respondent mother sought primary residence and exclusive possession, while the Applicant father sought equal parenting time.

The court granted the mother exclusive possession, finding the shared "nesting" arrangement exacerbated conflict.

For parenting, the court ordered a split schedule: the three younger children would continue with almost-equal time, while the three older adolescents would reside primarily with the mother, with regular scheduled time with the father and an option for additional time.

The court emphasized the children's best interests, the detrimental effects of parental conflict, and the need for both parents to support the children's relationship with the other.

This is an appeal of an arbitration award that changed the children's school from a private institution to a public one due to financial considerations.

The appellant mother alleged errors of law, fact, mixed fact and law, and procedural unfairness by the arbitrator, including failure to give due weight to the children's views, prioritizing finances over best interests, insufficient reasons, judicial notice errors, misapprehension of evidence, and procedural unfairness regarding financial disclosure.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors or errors of law, and upheld the arbitrator's decision, emphasizing deference to arbitral awards in family matters and the holistic consideration of the children's best interests within practical and financial constraints.

This case concerns a respondent mother's motion to change final orders regarding joint custody, parenting time, and child support.

The mother argued that the existing joint decision-making regime was unworkable due to high conflict and the applicant father's uncooperative behaviour, which negatively impacted the children's access to essential care (medical, dental, therapy).

The father opposed, seeking enforcement of existing orders and police intervention, attributing the issues to the mother's influence.

The court found a material change in circumstances, granted the mother sole decision-making authority, adjusted parenting time to reflect the children's views and reduce conflict, and denied the father's request for police enforcement.

Child support and section 7 expenses were also adjusted, with the father ordered to pay arrears and provide benefits information.

The respondent father sought to vary a 2019 final order regarding parenting issues, including decision-making authority (especially education), parenting schedule, and incidents of parenting.

The applicant mother opposed significant changes.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the child's declining academic performance under the mother's sole educational decision-making and the unabated high conflict between the parents.

The court reallocated decision-making authority, granting the father sole authority over educational issues and the mother retaining medical, dental, and therapeutic issues.

The parenting schedule was changed to an equal time regime, and detailed terms were ordered for holidays, travel, exchanges, and information sharing to reduce conflict and promote the child's best interests.

The applicant father brought a motion for an order compelling family therapy for his 16-year-old daughter, D, to support their relationship, which had deteriorated significantly.

The respondent mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer, representing the child, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the father's motion, giving considerable weight to the mature minor's strong and consistent opposition to forced therapy.

The court found that while it had jurisdiction to order therapy, the potential benefits did not outweigh the risks of exacerbating the child's physical and mental health issues, and that such an order would be practically unenforceable given the child's age and maturity.

The Family Responsibility Office (FRO) initiated a default hearing seeking an incarceration clause against the payor for child support arrears.

The payor opposed the incarceration term, arguing his conduct did not meet the threshold of wilful and deliberate disregard required by appellate caselaw.

The court reviewed the payor's history of non-payment, periods of unemployment, and subsequent compliance with varied support orders.

The court found that despite historical defaults, the payor's recent voluntary compliance and lack of aggravating conduct did not warrant an incarceration term.

The FRO's request for an incarceration clause was denied, and the default application was dismissed on a without prejudice basis, allowing the FRO to re-commence proceedings if future defaults occur.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.

The Respondent mother sought a mistrial in a child protection proceeding after an off-record exchange was inadvertently broadcast in the virtual courtroom, raising concerns about an unknown third party and potential drug transactions.

The mother argued the judge became a compellable witness and the information was prejudicial.

The Society and father opposed, arguing against delay and that the judge could disabuse herself of the information.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the judge was not compellable, the information was not properly before the court, and the judge could disabuse herself of it.

The court emphasized that mistrials are a last resort and that continuing the trial was in the best interests of the child and the administration of justice.

The Respondent sought costs arising from two motions: a long motion that settled and an urgent motion where the Respondent was wholly successful.

For the long motion, the court found divided success and awarded modest costs to the Respondent.

For the urgent motion, the Applicant was found to have acted in bad faith by failing to remove a Certificate of Pending Litigation as agreed and ordered, misleading parties, and obstructing the property sale.

This conduct led to a full indemnity costs award for the Respondent.

The Applicant's arguments regarding the Respondent's unreasonable behavior and her limited financial means were given limited weight.

The respondent mother sought an urgent temporary order for unsupervised access to the child, K.L.J., and police enforcement of access.

The applicant father opposed, raising concerns about the mother's lifestyle, past conduct, and the child's development, arguing for continued supervision.

The court found the matter urgent due to the complete cessation of contact between the mother and the vulnerable child.

It rejected the father's arguments for supervised access, finding insufficient evidence of safety concerns, and ordered immediate unsupervised access for the mother on alternate weekends and a mid-week overnight.

The request for police enforcement was declined.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton applied for a secure treatment order for the child O.O., who consented to the placement.

The court, proceeding in writing due to COVID-19, reviewed the application under Part VII of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

It applied the six guiding principles for secure treatment applications, modified to reflect the child's consent.

The court found that all six criteria under s. 164(1) of the CYFSA were met, including O.O.'s mental disorder, recent and chronic self-harm/harm to others, the efficacy and availability of treatment at Roberts Smart Centre, and the lack of less restrictive alternatives.

The court granted the order for 180 days of secure treatment, emphasizing O.O.'s best interests and continuity of care.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order that had terminated his access to his two children due to a history of emotional abuse, harassment, and anger issues directed at the applicant mother and witnessed by the children.

The court applied the two-stage test from Gordon v. Goertz, finding that the father failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances.

Despite engaging in minimal psychiatric consultation and an anger management course, the father lacked insight into his past abusive behavior, continued to blame others, and did not adequately address his mental health issues.

The court dismissed the motion to reinstate access but ordered the parties to use an online communication platform for child-focused information exchange and restricted the father from bringing further variation applications for 15 months without leave.

The applicant sought to strike the respondent's pleadings due to persistent non-compliance with financial disclosure orders in a family law proceeding involving spousal support and equalization of net family property.

Despite multiple court orders, extensions, and escalating daily penalties, the respondent had only selectively provided disclosure, deliberately withholding information deemed relevant.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance willful and egregious, noting that basic financial disclosure required by the Family Law Rules remained outstanding over two years into the litigation.

While acknowledging the severity of striking pleadings, the court granted the respondent one final, time-limited opportunity to comply with a detailed list of disclosure requirements and pay outstanding costs, failing which his answer would be struck without further argument.

The court also ordered that any unproduced documents related to excluded property, date of marriage assets, or valuation date debts could not be used at trial.