Matthew Dupre

The applicant, Jonathan Arthur Huson, brought various claims against the respondent, Jenny Lee Kirby, including an equitable interest in property, return of tools, and damages.

Ms. Kirby brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss these claims.

The court dismissed all of Mr. Huson's claims, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial due to lack of admissible evidence and legal foundation for his assertions, including a claim for divorce when the parties were never married.

The court also addressed the addition of two other property owners as respondents.

The mother took the parties' three children to Newfoundland and Labrador for a vacation and subsequently decided to remain there, obtaining an ex parte Emergency Protection Order (EPO) in that province.

The father brought an urgent motion in Ontario seeking the return of the children.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that it was not required to recognize the Newfoundland EPO as it was obtained without notice to the father.

The court determined that the children were habitually resident in Ontario, the father had not acquiesced to their relocation, and ordered the immediate return of the children to Ontario to resume a shared parenting arrangement.

The applicant moved for a temporary variation of a final parenting order to require that the respondent's parenting time be supervised, while the respondent sought enforcement and make-up parenting time and to strike portions of the evidentiary record.

The court declined to strike the applicant's affidavits and only treated speculative, inflammatory, and irrelevant portions of a non-party affidavit as struck.

Applying the stringent framework for temporary variation of a final parenting order, the court found a material change in circumstances based on previously unknown evidence from the respondent's adult child alleging past sexual and physical abuse.

Given the uncontradicted evidence, the absence of any direct denial by the respondent, and the statutory requirement to prioritize the children's safety, security, and wellbeing, the court ordered supervised parenting time pending further order.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike evidence tendered by the defendant in advance of the penalty phase of a contempt trial.

The defendant sought to introduce fresh engineering evidence to argue that the original judgment regarding surface water drainage was based on incorrect factual findings.

The court granted the motion and struck the evidence, finding that the affidavits contained improper argument and hearsay, failed to comply with expert report rules, and did not meet the test for fresh evidence.

Furthermore, the court held that allowing the evidence would permit a collateral attack on the final judgment, violate issue estoppel, and constitute an abuse of process.

The Children's Aid Society brought a temporary care hearing concerning the placement of two young children who were taken to a place of safety after their mother passed away.

Two competing plans for permanent care were presented: one by the children's maternal aunt residing in Georgia, and another by a police officer who responded to the initial call and his spouse.

The Society supported the maternal aunt's plan.

The court evaluated both plans, finding them both to be of high quality.

Ultimately, the court determined that it was in the children's best interests to be placed in the temporary care and custody of their maternal aunt, emphasizing the statutory preference for placement with a relative and the familial continuity she could provide.

During a case conference in an ongoing contempt proceeding, the defendant indicated an intention to bring a motion for a new trial and to admit fresh evidence.

The plaintiff objected, characterizing the proposed evidence as a collateral attack on a prior unappealed judgment.

The court vacated the upcoming trial dates and set a timetable for the plaintiff to bring a motion to strike the disputed evidence before the trial continues.

This endorsement addresses the settlement of a formal order following a liability judgment in contempt proceedings and outlines the schedule for a subsequent case conference and trial continuation.

The court finalized the order proposed by the plaintiff with minor revisions, noting the defendant's significant delay in responding.

A detailed timetable was established for the remaining issues, including purging contempt, penalty, and costs, with a strong emphasis on avoiding further delays given the defendant's nine-year non-compliance with a prior order.

The respondent husband brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the applicant wife's application to set aside their separation agreement.

The wife argued that her poor health, reliance on a disability pension, and need for home repairs constituted an unanticipated change in circumstances.

Applying the two-stage test from Miglin, the court found that the agreement was negotiated with competent counsel and that the wife's change in circumstances did not represent a significant departure from what could have been reasonably anticipated.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the application to set aside the agreement was dismissed.

The respondent brought a motion to continue supervised access to his two children following an order that had set a termination date of February 16, 2014.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought termination of access.

The court reviewed the history of the case, which involved multiple gaps in access spanning nearly five years, the respondent's criminal record including domestic violence convictions and breaches of court orders, his lack of insight into his behavior, and his abandonment of access from May to November 2013.

The court found that while access is generally presumed to be in the best interests of children, the cumulative harm caused by the respondent's pattern of rejection and inconsistency outweighed the benefits of contact.

The motion was dismissed and supervised access was terminated.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to deliver a psychiatric expert report outside the timelines set by Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, abridgement of time, an adjournment of a trial scheduled under the simplified procedure, and issuance of an interprovincial summons for a witness.

The delay resulted from counsel failing to promptly secure a psychiatric report after indicating at pre-trial that such evidence would be obtained.

The defendants opposed the adjournment, emphasizing proportionality and prejudice caused by the late request.

The court acknowledged the plaintiff’s non-compliance and lack of diligence but held that the interests of justice favoured allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to present expert evidence.

The trial was adjourned with conditions, including that the plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs thrown away by the adjournment.