Clinton H. Culic

The parties separated when their child was 10 months old, and the mother unilaterally retained the child in Alberta while the father returned to Ontario.

The mother sought sole decision-making and supervised parenting time for the father, alleging he posed a risk of sexual harm to the child.

Following a 4-day trial and expert psychiatric evidence concluding the father posed no risk, the court dismissed the mother's claims of abuse.

The court ordered joint decision-making with divided tie-breaking authority, terminated the supervision requirement, and ordered that the child reside in Ontario with the father to maximize contact with both parents.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim asserting a compensable interest in property owned by the defendant, the court determined the defendant’s entitlement to costs.

The defendant relied on two offers to settle, including one that remained open until trial and was more favourable than the final result, entitling her to enhanced cost recovery.

The court considered the Rules of Civil Procedure factors, the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly rate, and the lack of clear separation between partial and substantial indemnity claims.

Balancing these considerations, the court fixed costs at a reduced amount from what was sought.

The plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership interest in a house legally owned by his former mother-in-law, arguing either an express agreement that title would transfer after the mortgage was paid or, alternatively, proprietary estoppel.

The court rejected the plaintiff's account of any promise to gift the down payment or transfer the property, preferring the evidence that the arrangement was a rental investment intended to provide favourable housing to family members.

Applying the elements of proprietary estoppel, the court found no inducement or encouragement by the owner, insufficient proof of detriment in light of below-market rent and other countervailing benefits, and no unconscionable conduct.

The action was dismissed, the parties were declared to stand in a landlord-tenant relationship, and judgment for unpaid rent was granted to the defendant.

The plaintiff moved under Rule 49.09 to enforce Minutes of Settlement signed at a pre-trial conference in a land ownership dispute over a disputed parcel described as a cattle path.

The defendants conceded a binding agreement existed but argued it should not be enforced because of alleged duress, mistake about the land to be conveyed, and misunderstanding as to finality.

The court rejected the allegations of duress and mistake, found the defendants were represented by independent counsel and later experienced buyer's remorse, and held the settlement was reasonable and would not work an injustice.

A final order was directed to issue on the Minutes of Settlement, and the defendants were ordered to remove vehicles or chattels from the parcel within seven days.

Following prior reasons for judgment on a summary judgment motion limited to the issue of possession, the court convened to settle the form of order and address case management issues.

The court clarified that the plaintiff’s claim relating to contaminated soil and debris had not been dismissed and ordered that the reference in the draft order suggesting otherwise be deleted.

The plaintiff was directed to serve an amended statement of claim clearly articulating the causes of action, material facts, and relief sought against each defendant, with corresponding timelines for amended defences and related pleadings.

The court also scheduled completion of remaining discoveries, struck the jury notice by consent, adjourned the previously scheduled trial date, and set a new trial date.

A mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a writ of possession of a farm property following the mortgagor’s default under a second mortgage.

The mortgagor opposed the motion, asserting equitable set‑off based on alleged misrepresentations regarding a wood furnace and environmental contamination on the property.

The court held that the mortgagor failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the contamination claim or establish a triable issue preventing possession.

However, the court found the furnace claim had potential merit and structured an interim remedy allowing the mortgagor time to pay part of the mortgage principal to delay enforcement pending trial.

Conditional orders were issued governing possession, payment into court, and scheduling of discoveries and trial.