Leanne E. Standryk

The defendant in a medical malpractice trial brought a motion to reopen the evidentiary record after the close of evidence but before judgment, seeking to introduce fresh evidence regarding recent amendments to the Assistive Devices Program (ADP).

The defendant argued the new ADP policies would make the plaintiff's orthotic device eligible for funding, thereby reducing the future care costs claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's device remained ineligible under the revised ADP criteria because it was not manufactured in-house from raw materials.

The court further held that even if the evidence could change the result, reopening the trial after ten years of litigation would not be in the interests of justice due to significant delay, costs, and procedural complexity.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's construction lien action for delay under Rule 24.01(1)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the plaintiff failed to set the action down for trial within six months of the close of pleadings.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Rule 24.01(1)(c) is inconsistent with the statutory timelines under the Construction Act, which provides that a perfected lien expires on the second anniversary of the commencement of the action.

The court also noted that the plaintiff's delay was justified by the defendants' pending appeal regarding the court's jurisdiction.

The applicant sought to enforce an oral agreement made with his predeceased son, pursuant to which the applicant and his seriously ill wife transferred title of their home to the son in exchange for a life interest in the property and approximately $71,000 in cash, while conveying over $175,000 in equity.

The son died unexpectedly, and the estate subsequently ceased paying the mortgage and threatened to sell the property.

The court found that the agreement, though unwritten, was enforceable pursuant to the doctrine of part performance, as the extensive acts of performance by all parties were unequivocally referable to dealings with the land and established clear and irreversible detrimental reliance.

Enforcing the Statute of Frauds in these circumstances would have been unconscionable.

The court declared a binding life interest, ordered registration of an instrument on title reflecting the life interest, and awarded damages of $22,047.94 for mortgage and insurance payments the applicant was compelled to make during the estate's non-performance, on both contractual and unjust enrichment grounds.

Costs were fixed at $43,245.44, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The offender, a 19-year-old first-time offender and sole caregiver to two young children, was found guilty following a jury trial of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, possession of a stolen vehicle, possession of proceeds of crime, and obstructing a peace officer.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of four to six years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court found exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the usual penitentiary range for fentanyl trafficking, citing the offender's youth, lack of prior record, peripheral involvement, and the severe impact incarceration would have on her children.

A global conditional sentence of two years less a day was imposed, followed by three years of probation.

The plaintiff, a university student, brought an action for breach of contract and negligence against the university, seeking a declaration of breach of implied terms of academic transparency and an order compelling disclosure of historical grade-distribution data.

The defendant university moved to strike the statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The court granted the motion, finding that the claim was an impermissible collateral attack on an academic decision and an abuse of process.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend, as the dispute fell within the university's broad academic discretion and should have been pursued via judicial review.

A family law trial involving two self-represented litigants concerning parenting arrangements, decision-making responsibility, and child support for their child.

The applicant father sought increased parenting time and sole decision-making responsibility, alleging parental alienation by the respondent mother.

The respondent mother opposed the application and sought suspension of parenting time, alleging the father's violence and erratic behaviour.

The parties had previously separated in 2018 and entered into a separation agreement in 2020 providing for joint decision-making and a four-week rotation parenting schedule.

A significant incident involving physical violence occurred in July 2024 in the child's presence, resulting in criminal charges against the father (later withdrawn in exchange for a peace bond).

The court found that while both parents engaged in alienating behaviour, the father's absence from the child's life since September 2024 and the child's anxiety disorder precluded a shared parenting schedule at this time.

The court ordered sole decision-making responsibility to the mother with incremental reintroduction of parenting time facilitated by the paternal uncle, reconciliation counselling, and ongoing child support obligations.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff’s slip-and-fall action for failure to provide notice within ten days as required by the Municipal Act, 2001.

The plaintiff argued for an exception based on reasonable excuse and lack of prejudice to the municipality.

The court found that the plaintiff could rely on a late-served expert report for the motion, but that the admissibility of both parties’ expert evidence was not established.

The court concluded that the conflicting expert evidence on the plaintiff’s capacity and reasonable excuse created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

Both the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff’s request for reverse summary judgment were dismissed.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.

This is a costs decision following a contempt motion brought by the applicant to enforce paternal grandparent visits.

The court found that the applicant had proven contempt beyond a reasonable doubt but exercised judicial discretion not to make a formal finding of contempt, citing the applicant's failure to pursue other enforcement steps and the potential negative impact on the children.

The respondent was found in breach of the order, and child-centred relief was granted.

The applicant sought full recovery costs, while the respondent argued for costs in her favour on a partial indemnity basis, claiming success in defending the contempt.

The court determined that the applicant was largely successful in reestablishing visits and proving contempt, and neither party acted unreasonably to be deprived of costs.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs of $18,459.84, reduced slightly due to the respondent's minor success in obtaining updated information about the applicant's therapy.

The applicants sought declarations that their removal as directors of the Niagara Regional Native Centre (NRNC) and the subsequent election of the individual respondents to the board in February 2023 were invalid due to governance irregularities and violations of the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act and NRNC By-Laws.

The court found the February 2023 election and the applicants' removal and membership termination invalid due to lack of proper notice, voting irregularities, and failure to comply with statutory and by-law requirements.

While acknowledging the invalidity, the court declined to reinstate the applicants or invalidate all acts of the subsequent board, instead ordering the current October 2023 board to continue until a properly conducted election, with specific protocols for membership and voting.

The applicant brought a contempt motion against the respondent for allegedly breaching a consent order concerning paternal grandparent visits with the children.

The court found that the respondent was in breach of the order, having failed to actively promote and facilitate the visits.

However, the court exercised its discretion not to make a formal finding of contempt, emphasizing that contempt is a remedy of last resort in family law, other remedies were available, and a contempt finding would not serve the children's best interests by escalating conflict.

Instead, the court issued new orders to facilitate grandparent visits, mandated mediation, and required the applicant to provide proof of completed therapy.

The defendant successfully obtained summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's $2.2 million defamation claim and sought partial indemnity costs of $8,836.76.

The plaintiff opposed the costs award, arguing that the defendant used salaried in-house counsel and that a costs award would have a chilling effect, while also requesting a sealing order in her costs submissions.

The court dismissed the sealing order request for failing to follow proper procedure.

The court awarded the defendant its requested costs, confirming that in-house lawyers are entitled to seek costs on an equal basis to external lawyers and finding the amount reasonable and proportionate.

The plaintiff sued the Niagara Regional Police Services Board for defamation and other torts arising from a 2019 arrest and a subsequent 2021 police report.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide the mandatory written notice under section 5 of the Libel and Slander Act, which acts as an absolute bar to the defamation action.

The court also noted that the police reports were protected by qualified privilege.

The mother brought a motion for security for costs regarding the father's contempt motion and motion to change, and sought to stay the motion to change pending the father's appeal of the final order.

The father, who resides outside Ontario and has an outstanding costs award against him, brought cross-motions seeking sanctions and a written apology from the mother.

The court stayed the father's motion to change pending the appeal, finding it inconsistent with the primary objective of the Family Law Rules to proceed while the appeal is outstanding.

The court ordered the father to post security for costs of $7,500 for the contempt motion and $20,000 for the motion to change, noting his non-resident status and the outstanding costs award.

The father's cross-motions were dismissed.

The mother brought a motion for security for costs regarding the father's appeal of a final family law order and costs order.

The father, who resides in the United States, had no assets in Ontario and the court found good reason to believe his appeal lacked merit.

Applying the two-stage analysis under Rule 61.06(1), the court balanced the father's expenses in exercising parenting time against the mother's need for protection from costs.

The court ordered the father to post $15,000 as security for costs of the appeal.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an unopposed application for a compliance order against a unit owner whose unit contained excessive combustible materials and unauthorized renovations, resulting in a fire inspection order.

The court found the respondent in breach of section 117 of the Condominium Act for permitting a dangerous condition to exist.

The court granted the corporation temporary vacant possession to remediate the unit and awarded full indemnity costs to be added to the unit's common expenses.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for damages arising from an alleged campaign of harassment following the end of their romantic relationship.

The plaintiff argued her claim was saved from the basic two-year limitation period by section 16(1)(h.2)(i) of the Limitations Act, which removes the limitation period for assault if the parties had an intimate relationship.

The court found the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she had reasonable grounds to fear imminent harmful or offensive contact.

As the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred, the court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action.