Lloyd R. St. Amand

Following a successful appeal of a trial judge's order granting custody to the father and paternal grandparents, the court held a hearing to determine the appropriate disposition based on fresh evidence.

The court found that the mother and maternal family remained fixated on unproven allegations that the father sexually abused the child, posing a risk of emotional harm and further trauma to the child.

Consequently, the court ordered that custody remain with the paternal grandparents and the father, while the mother and maternal grandmother were granted supervised access, with a requirement for counselling before access could be expanded.

The mother appealed an Ontario Court of Justice order granting custody of her 6-year-old child to the father and paternal grandparents.

The mother argued the trial judge erred by denying adjournments, misapprehending evidence of sexual abuse allegations, and granting custody to non-parties without mandatory police checks.

The Superior Court found no error in denying the adjournments or assessing the abuse allegations.

However, the court held the trial judge erred in law by granting custody to the grandparents without compliance with the Children's Law Reform Act and without sufficient evidence of the father's parenting plan.

The appeal was allowed, and the court ordered the filing of fresh evidence to determine the child's best interests.

Following summary judgment in favour of a mortgagee on a first mortgage, the court determined costs arising from the motion and the broader action.

The mortgagee sought substantial costs against the mortgagors and guarantor, while the defendants sought costs against a second mortgagee whose summary judgment motion dismissing their third party claims failed.

The court held that the mortgagee was entitled to costs but found the amounts claimed excessive and reduced them, allocating portions jointly and severally among the defendants.

The court also found the second mortgagee acted unreasonably in bringing a summary judgment motion involving credibility issues and ordered substantial indemnity costs in favour of the guarantor.

Requests to stay enforcement of the summary judgment and costs orders pending related insurance litigation were denied.

The plaintiff, Scotia Mortgage Corporation, brought a motion for summary judgment against the mortgagors and the guarantor for default under a first mortgage.

The property had been destroyed by fire, and insurance proceeds were insufficient to cover the mortgage debt due to a rebuilding clause.

The guarantor defended on grounds including non es factum and material alteration of the mortgage.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, finding the guarantor's defences without merit.

A second mortgagee, named as a third party, also moved for summary judgment to dismiss claims that he was liable as a mortgagee in possession.

The court dismissed the second mortgagee's motion, finding that whether he had assumed control of the property was a genuine issue requiring a trial.