Veronica Marson

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for parenting time with his two children, having been denied contact by the respondent mother since April 2021 following an alleged domestic assault.

The mother opposed in-person contact, citing the outstanding criminal charges and allegations of family violence.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act, finding that the uncorroborated allegations did not justify denying the children time with their father.

The court ordered temporary supervised parenting time for the father, gradually stepping up to unsupervised access.

The applicant sought a declaration that his homeowner's insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify him in an underlying action arising from an incident at a summer camp.

The underlying claim alleged that the applicant pulled the plaintiff's head back, kneed him, and punched him, pleading both negligence and assault and battery.

The insurer denied coverage based on an intentional acts exclusion.

The court dismissed the application, finding the duty to indemnify was premature and the duty to defend was not triggered because the negligence claim was entirely derivative of the intentional tort of battery, which fell squarely within the policy's exclusion clause.

The applicant law firms brought an application to declare the respondent a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent had a history of initiating multiple proceedings against his former lawyers, including solicitor negligence claims and assessments of accounts, while failing to pay numerous costs awards.

The court found the respondent's conduct met the criteria for a vexatious litigant and ordered that he may not institute or continue any proceeding without leave of the court.

The applicant sought an order referring a solicitor’s account for assessment more than 12 months after delivery and payment pursuant to the Solicitors Act.

The legal services related to tort claims arising from motor vehicle accidents, which were settled at mediation in 2009, with the applicant acknowledging the net recovery and legal fees.

The court considered the requirement to establish “special circumstances” to justify assessment outside the statutory 12‑month period, particularly where accounts have already been paid.

Given the applicant’s delay of nearly five years and the absence of evidence of fraud or gross misconduct, the court found no basis to waive the statutory deadline.

The motion to refer the account for assessment was dismissed.