Claudius Croiset Van Uchelen

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an order requiring the defendants to provide copies of the documents listed in Schedule A of their Affidavit of Documents.

The court noted that the moving party's counsel had prematurely demanded the documents immediately upon receiving the Affidavit of Documents, contrary to good practice.

The court dismissed the motion, observing that it appeared to be a tactic to gain more time to deliver a further affidavit, and extended the timeline for the delivery of that affidavit.

The respondent, Trevor Shaw, brought a motion for summary judgment under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules for the sale of a jointly owned family home.

The applicant, Khim Kaing, opposed the sale, arguing it would cause significant hardship to her and their three young children.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a forced sale would be oppressive due to the severe hardship it would impose on the applicant and the children, considering the children's best interests and the applicant's inability to secure suitable alternative accommodation while unemployed and attending school.

The defendant, Alain Lemay, brought a motion seeking to purge a contempt finding made against him by the Small Claims Court and arguing that garnishment proceedings precluded the plaintiff, Sebastien Garnier, from conducting an examination of debtor (EOD).

Garnier brought a cross-motion seeking to proceed with an EOD and for further contempt findings.

The Superior Court of Justice confirmed the Small Claims Court Deputy Judge's jurisdiction to make contempt findings and ruled that garnishment does not prevent a judgment creditor from pursuing an EOD.

Lemay's motion was dismissed, and Garnier was permitted to proceed with EODs.

Other contempt matters and a claim for compensation were adjourned for future determination, and terms were set for Lemay to advance or abandon his Divisional Court appeal motion.

The applicant filed human rights applications against his former landlord and the City of Ottawa, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The applicant claimed the landlord failed to properly install a walkway and subsequently filed eviction notices in reprisal for the applicant asserting his human rights.

He also claimed the City failed to enforce property standards regarding the walkway.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed both applications, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the landlord's or the City's actions to his disability, nor any evidence that the landlord's Landlord and Tenant Board applications were intended as a reprisal.