Paula Downs

Following an interim parenting motion where the respondent mother was successful in obtaining sole decision-making and primary care, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The respondent sought $12,000, while the applicant argued for $5,000.

Applying the factors under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, including findings of unreasonable behaviour by both parties, the court fixed costs at $8,000 payable by the applicant to the respondent.

The mortgagee defendants brought a motion seeking an order that the corporate plaintiff pay security for costs under Rule 56.01(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The underlying action involved a failed real estate development and claims of civil conspiracy and knowing receipt of trust property.

The court found good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate impecuniosity or a real possibility of success on its equitable claims.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post security for costs in the amount of $186,000.

The parties brought urgent motions for interim parenting and child support.

The mother sought primary care and sole decision-making, alleging a history of family violence and alcohol abuse by the father, who had recently returned from working in Alberta and quit his job.

The court found the status quo prior to separation was that the mother was the primary caregiver.

The court granted the mother interim primary care and sole decision-making responsibility, ordered a specified parenting schedule for the father with alcohol prohibitions, and imputed income to the father for the purpose of interim child support.

The plaintiffs, an investment corporation and its principals, suffered losses from a failed real estate development and sought to recover their unsecured investment in priority to secured creditors.

The secured creditors (defendants) brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motions, finding complex factual issues, multiple credibility assessments, and a risk of inconsistent findings if partial summary judgment were granted.

The court concluded that the current record was not appropriate for summary judgment and that a full trial was required to resolve the intertwined issues, including allegations of knowing receipt of trust property and conspiracy.

The applicant property owner sought an order prohibiting the respondent neighbours from parking on a shared right-of-way.

The respondents argued they had acquired a prescriptive right to park there and cross-applied to restrict the applicant from using the right-of-way to launch marine vehicles.

The court dismissed the application, finding the respondents had established an absolute and indefeasible right to park on the right-of-way through over 40 years of continuous use.

Furthermore, the court held the applicant's easement rights were limited to foot access to the beach and enjoined the applicant from operating motorized vehicles or building ramps on the unpaved portion of the right-of-way.

The plaintiffs advanced funds to a corporation that later went into receivership.

The plaintiffs sought repayment from the individual defendants based on a poorly drafted document entitled 'Agreement to Purchase'.

The court applied the factual matrix approach to contractual interpretation and concluded that the document was intended to be a personal guarantee by the individual defendants for the corporation's debt.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for the outstanding principal and interest.

The appellant property owner appealed a trial judgment that denied him damages for conversion, trespass, and punitive damages, as well as costs, following the respondent Township's unauthorized entry onto his property to remove chattels.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's dismissal of the substantive damages claims, finding that the chattels had no value and that setting off trespass damages against towing and clean-up costs was appropriate.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal costs, holding that the trial judge erred in depriving the appellant of costs given his overall success at trial.

The appellant was awarded trial and appeal costs.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that she and her husband fraudulently conveyed their matrimonial home to her alone to defeat creditors.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the husband had acquired a beneficial interest when the property was previously transferred into joint names to secure a mortgage, and that the subsequent reconveyance to the appellant alone was intended to defeat creditors.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding interest, reducing the rate from 1% per month to the Courts of Justice Act rate of 3.3% per annum, and changing the start date.