Lisa M. Walters

The matter was remitted by the Court of Appeal to determine if the plaintiff qualified for long-term disability benefits under his employer's benefits booklet as of January 27, 2014.

The plaintiff argued he was disabled due to a severe hernia condition that prevented him from performing his duties as a site superintendent.

The defendant argued there was insufficient medical evidence of disability.

The court found the plaintiff credible, noted his condition was corroborated by medical records, and concluded he met the definition of disability during the qualifying period.

The court ruled the plaintiff qualified for long-term disability benefits.

This case addresses the complex interaction between the Land Titles Act and the Registry Act concerning the expiry of restrictive covenants on real property.

The central issue was whether a notice of claim, registered under the Registry Act to extend a restrictive covenant, remained effective after the property was converted to the land titles system.

The court determined that the date of registration for the purpose of the Land Titles Act's 40-year expiry rule becomes the date the notice of claim was filed, thereby extending the covenant's validity.

The court dismissed the applicant's request to delete a caution and set aside a prior order that had removed the covenant, ruling in favour of the respondent who benefited from the covenant.

The plaintiff, a senior area supervisor with nearly 30 years of service, brought an action for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause.

The employer alleged the plaintiff breached company policies regarding conflicts of interest, markdowns, and ethical conduct, including failing to disclose a relationship with a cleaning contractor and improperly discounting furniture for himself and friends.

The court found the plaintiff engaged in serious misconduct, including fraud and breach of trust, which went to the core of the employment relationship.

Applying the McKinley proportionality test, the court concluded the employer had just cause for summary dismissal and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff sued the municipality for negligence after tripping and falling in a pothole on a residential road.

The parties agreed on damages of $100,000, leaving liability as the sole issue.

The court applied the four-step test for municipal non-repair under the Municipal Act.

The action was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to provide reliable evidence of the pothole's dimensions, thereby failing to prove that the road was in a state of non-repair that posed an unreasonable risk of harm.

The court noted that had liability been found, the plaintiff would have been 15 percent contributorily negligent for failing to pay reasonable attention to the roadway surface.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for assault against his ex-girlfriend.

At trial, the defence called a witness who testified that the complainant admitted to fabricating the assault to gain an advantage in a custody dispute.

Defence counsel inadvertently failed to put this statement to the complainant during cross-examination.

The Crown did not object until closing submissions, at which point defence counsel immediately requested to recall the complainant.

The trial judge refused the request and convicted the appellant.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge erred in refusing to recall the witness, and that the Crown's untimely objection contributed to trial unfairness.

The conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of failing to comply with a breath demand.

The trial judge had found the approved screening device (ASD) demand unlawful, concluding the officer lacked reasonable suspicion and failed to make the demand immediately.

The summary conviction appeal court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in law by rejecting the defence's concession on reasonable suspicion without explanation and by ignoring objective facts such as the odour of alcohol and the respondent's admission to drinking.

The appeal court also held the trial judge erred by interpreting 'immediately' as 'instantaneously', finding the two-to-four minute delay was reasonably necessary.

The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

He argued the trial judge erred in applying the presumption of accuracy under s. 320.31(1) of the Criminal Code because the Certificate of Analyst presented at trial contained a different lot number than the other documentation.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge reasonably relied on the totality of the evidence, including the qualified technician's testimony and a newly prepared certificate, to conclude the Crown proved the target value of the alcohol standard beyond a reasonable doubt.

This trial decision addresses a divorce, equalization of net family properties, and an accounting of rents and post-separation expenses between Guy Gionet (Applicant) and Franca Pingue (Respondent).

The court determined beneficial ownership of several properties, finding a resulting trust in favour of the applicant for the matrimonial home and a constructive trust in favour of the respondent for two investment properties.

The applicant was found more credible.

An equalization payment of $59,535.98 was ordered from the applicant to the respondent.

Claims for post-separation expenses and rent accounting were dismissed, as the respondent's expenses were offset by rents received.

The parties separated after an 11-year cohabitation and marriage during which they operated a joint property maintenance business.

The applicant sought an equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The court preferred the applicant's evidence due to the respondent's failure to provide accurate financial disclosure and valuations.

The court determined the value of disputed assets, including a partially built home and business equipment, and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $161,727.28 (as corrected in the addendum).

The court also found the applicant entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, imputing an income of $80,000 to the respondent and ordering him to pay $800 per month for five years.

The applicant brought a motion to change a prior custody and access order, seeking sole custody of the child, reduced access for the respondent, changes to transportation arrangements, and contribution to extraordinary expenses.

The respondent opposed the motion, sought custody himself, and brought a contempt motion alleging the applicant breached the earlier order by restricting access.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the applicant remaining in St. Catharines after completing her education, contrary to the expectations underlying the original order.

Applying the best interests of the child under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court maintained joint custody but modified the respondent’s parenting time to every third weekend with expanded summer access.

The request for s. 7 contributions and the respondent’s contempt motion were both dismissed.

Following a second trial in a family law matter, the court determined the costs for both the first and second trials.

The first trial had been overturned on appeal due to inadequate reasons by the trial judge.

The court declined to award costs for the first trial, finding neither party at fault for its failure.

For the second trial, the applicant was substantially more successful and had made a reasonable offer to settle.

However, the court noted that both parties had unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $150,000 for the second trial.

This was a costs endorsement following a lengthy trial in which the plaintiffs obtained judgment for damages, interest, and declaratory relief in a corporate and fiduciary dispute.

The court applied s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, together with the costs principles in Boucher, to determine a fair and reasonable costs award.

The plaintiffs' offers to settle were found to be more favourable than the result ultimately obtained, while the defendants' offers were not.

Given the length and complexity of the trial, the defendant's conduct, and the settlement history, substantial indemnity costs were awarded.

In this family trial arising from a long-running marriage breakdown, the court determined the enforceability of an Islamic Mahr, child support and section 7 expenses, equalization, post-separation property adjustments, and spousal support.

The court set aside the Mahr because the parties did not read Arabic, there was no reliable evidence of negotiation or informed consent, and the court was not satisfied the husband understood the nature of what he signed.

For child support, the court accepted the applicant's accounting evidence, declined to impute additional income for intentional underemployment, imputed at least $200,000 income to the respondent due to unreliable disclosure, and ordered ongoing table support based on $500,000 income with equal sharing of specified section 7 expenses.

The court ordered the respondent to pay equalization and post-separation adjustment amounts, and dismissed the respondent's retroactive and ongoing spousal support claims for lack of compensatory or needs-based entitlement.

The plaintiffs and defendants, who are family members, entered into a business venture to purchase and manage an apartment building through a corporation.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant managing the building breached his fiduciary duties by misappropriating corporate funds for personal use and to purchase other properties.

After a 40-day trial involving extensive forensic accounting evidence, the court found the defendant's evidence lacked credibility and determined he had misappropriated $592,671.43.

The court imposed a constructive trust on the properties purchased with the misappropriated funds and ordered the defendant removed as an officer, director, and shareholder of the corporation.

Following a family law trial, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought full recovery of trial costs, while the respondent requested that each party bear their own costs.

Applying s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the applicant was significantly more successful overall, particularly on the key issue of equalization of net family property.

The court also found that the respondent’s conduct, including providing incomplete and misleading information regarding the valuation of a business interest, unnecessarily prolonged the litigation.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $35,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following a divorce trial, the court addressed retroactive child support, a restraining order request, and equalization of net family property.

Retroactive child support was denied because the adult child was not shown to be a dependent within the meaning of the Divorce Act or Family Law Act after age 18.

The court also terminated an existing restraining order, finding insufficient evidence of reasonable fear for personal safety.

In determining equalization, the court rejected parts of the respondent’s financial evidence due to credibility concerns and incomplete disclosure, particularly regarding a family aviation business.

Relying on evidence of a near‑contemporaneous offer to purchase corporate assets, the court valued the respondent’s business interest and ordered an equalization payment to the applicant.

The court determined costs following a family law trial concerning child support.

The successful party sought full indemnity costs of approximately $45,525 or alternatively partial indemnity costs of approximately $34,474, while the opposing party argued that no costs should be ordered.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, the court held that the successful party was entitled to costs despite not obtaining the full relief sought.

The court considered that the unsuccessful party had taken an aggressive litigation position and underestimated income, while also noting the absence of an offer to settle and excessive time spent litigating income issues.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis at $20,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant sought retroactive child support and contribution toward post-secondary education expenses for the parties’ adult child.

The respondent had failed to provide annual financial disclosure as required by a prior support order and continued paying child support based on an outdated imputed income despite increases in income and retained corporate earnings.

The court found the respondent engaged in blameworthy conduct and imputed additional income, including retained earnings, personal benefits, and income splitting with a spouse.

Applying the principles in S. (D.B.) v. G. (S.R.), the court ordered retroactive child support for three years and determined the adult child regained “child of the marriage” status upon returning to full-time university studies.

The respondent was ordered to contribute a fixed annual amount toward the child’s post‑secondary education expenses.

Following a family law trial involving custody and a proposed relocation of a child, the court addressed the issue of costs.

Although both parties achieved partial success regarding custody, the respondent was unsuccessful in her request to relocate the child to Kingston.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, the court determined that the applicant achieved greater success on the central issue and was entitled to costs.

The court also emphasized that costs must be awarded for specific stages of proceedings, referencing appellate authority.

Partial indemnity costs of $10,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements were awarded to the applicant.

The applicant father and respondent mother both sought sole custody of their two-year-old son.

The mother also sought permission to relocate with the child from St. Catharines to Kingston to live with her new husband.

The court found that the child had thrived under a shared parenting arrangement in St. Catharines, where he had extensive extended family support.

Applying the principles from Gordon v. Goertz and Berry v. Berry, the court determined that relocating to Kingston would significantly disrupt the child's relationship with his father and extended family, and was not in his best interests.

The court ordered joint custody and a shared parenting schedule, and prohibited the relocation.