Lucille Shaw

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2016 final order for child and spousal support, seeking a retroactive decrease based on a material change in income, termination of spousal support due to remarriage, and relief from obtaining life insurance.

The court found the father was intentionally underemployed and had a history of avoiding his support obligations, including moving to Pakistan for a low-paying job.

However, the court recognized a temporary material change due to his return to Canada just before the COVID-19 pandemic and reduced support for the period he received CERB.

Thereafter, an income of $60,000 was imputed to him.

The requests to terminate spousal support and cancel the life insurance obligation were dismissed.

The applicant father sought a refund of child support and section 7 expenses paid for his adult son's post-secondary education.

The father had continued to pay the full table amount of support while the son lived away from home, and argued that many of the section 7 expenses claimed by the respondent mother were already covered by the table amount.

The court found that the son was required to contribute to his own education from summer earnings and grants, and that expenses such as food, utilities, and toiletries were covered by the table support.

The court ordered the mother to reimburse the father $20,822.73 for overpaid section 7 expenses and support paid after the son began working full-time.

The Appellant, Andreas Touma, appealed two orders of Clay J. dismissing his motion for interim shared custody and equal parenting time of his newborn son, and dismissing his application to set aside the first order based on apprehension of bias.

The motions judge had ruled that the application should be commenced in Oshawa, where the child ordinarily resided, rather than Peel, where the father resided.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the motions judge correctly applied the Family Law Rules regarding the ordinary residence for commencing an application, distinguishing it from habitual residence for jurisdictional contests.

The court also found no reasonable apprehension of bias by the motions judge.

The applicant brought a motion to change a final order to include retroactive child support, arguing the respondent failed to disclose a $29,908 debt registered as a lien on the matrimonial home.

The original settlement had offset child support arrears against the applicant's equalization payment for the home.

The respondent failed to appear at the hearing.

The court found the undisclosed debt constituted a change in circumstances under the Divorce Act, as the applicant would not have agreed to the offset had she known of the lien.

The court varied the order, requiring the respondent to pay $34,454 in child support arrears and $15,000 in costs, and dismissed the respondent's cross-motion.

The applicant and respondent, former spouses, were involved in a shareholder dispute regarding a family-owned real estate holding company.

The parties agreed that the respondent would purchase the applicant's 40% share, but disputed the valuation date.

The applicant sought a valuation at the date of the hearing, alleging oppressive conduct, while the respondent sought a valuation at the date he commenced his application in 2015.

The court found that the respondent's failure to provide financial disclosure constituted oppressive conduct and was not statute-barred.

However, considering the delays caused by both parties and the applicant's lack of involvement in the company, the court determined that the fair and just valuation date was the corporate year-end in 2017.

The plaintiffs, owners of a shoe restoration business, brought a motion for an interim injunction to compel the defendant, a former employee, to remove social media posts alleging that the plaintiffs were racist and had terminated her for supporting the Black Lives Matter movement.

The court applied the stringent test for injunctive relief in defamation actions, which requires the moving party to show that the words are clearly defamatory and that any defences of justification or fair comment will inevitably fail.

The court found that, based on the evidence presented, it would not be perverse for a trier of fact to find that the defences of justification or fair comment had been made out.

The motion for an interim injunction was dismissed.

The applicant purchased property and obtained title insurance from the respondent.

The former owner sued the applicant to set aside the sale, and the respondent initially assumed the defence.

The applicant later lost title to the property through power of sale proceedings, prompting the respondent to deny a continuing duty to defend on the basis that the applicant no longer owned the property.

The applicant brought an application seeking a declaration that the respondent owed a continuing duty to defend.

The court found that the underlying action included a claim for damages based on unjust enrichment, which triggered the respondent's duty to defend even though the applicant no longer owned the property.

The accused was tried on firearm and aggravated assault charges arising from a shooting in a residential neighbourhood.

The Crown relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including association with a rented white vehicle, surveillance photographs, Blackberry data, and cell tower records.

Applying the governing principles for circumstantial evidence, the court held the Crown failed to prove that the accused was the shooter or a party to the offence, particularly in light of exculpatory eyewitness evidence, evidentiary gaps concerning phone possession and vehicle use, and a reasonable alternative inference implicating another individual.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The applicant sought a bail review after being detained following an initial bail hearing on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The Crown conceded that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court considered the applicant's escalating criminal behaviour, including breaches of prior court orders and serious firearm-related charges, and a proposed release plan that included GPS monitoring.

Despite the heightened risks of COVID-19 in correctional facilities, the court found a substantial likelihood of the applicant re-offending and that his release would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The bail review application was dismissed, and the applicant remained detained.

The defendants, GlaxoSmithKline LLC and Almirall (Aqua Pharmaceuticals), brought a motion to set aside service of the Statement of Claim and to dismiss or stay the action against them for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, Glycobiosciences Inc., alleged tortious interference and fraudulent/negligent misrepresentation.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a good arguable case for any presumptive connecting factors (domicile, carrying on business, or tort committed in Ontario) to link the defendants to the jurisdiction.

Consequently, the court lacked a real and substantial connection to the action, set aside service, and stayed the action against both defendants.

Costs were awarded to the successful defendants.

The applicant moved to remove the respondent's lawyer and his firm as counsel of record, arguing she intended to call the lawyer as a witness at trial regarding the negotiation of a separation agreement she sought to set aside for duress.

The court applied the nine-factor test from Essa (Township) v. Guergis and found that the lawyer's evidence would largely be protected by solicitor-client privilege, other sources of evidence were available, and removing counsel would severely prejudice the respondent.

The motion to remove counsel was dismissed.

This costs endorsement followed an eight-day trial primarily concerning custody, access, and various financial issues.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs of $125,000, while the respondent argued for no costs due to divided success.

The court conducted a contextual analysis of success, considering the importance of issues and time devoted to them, rather than a simple tally.

It found that success was divided across the multiple contested issues, including custody, access, child support, spousal support, equalization, occupation rent, and matrimonial home carrying costs.

The court also noted that both parties contributed to the inefficiency of the litigation by pursuing minor issues and incurring disproportionate legal fees.

Consequently, the court ordered no costs payable by either party.

The Township of Amaranth sought declarations and a permanent injunction against Vidhya Ramdas for contravening its Site Alteration By-law and a Stop Work Order by performing unauthorized fill activities on her property.

Ramdas failed to file responding materials despite multiple adjournments and court orders.

The court found deliberate and continuing breaches of the by-law and the orders, granting the Township's application for declarations, a permanent injunction, remedial orders for property restoration, and costs.

This endorsement determines the quantum and payer of costs following a dismissed application by Sandra Krolewski and Edward Medeiros to set aside the 2015 Will of Eduardo Medeiros.

The respondent, Maria Natalia Moniz, was the successful party in the main application.

The court awarded Moniz partial indemnity costs of $46,349.74, reducing the amount sought due to proportionality and duplication of counsel.

The costs were ordered to be paid by the applicants, not the estate, as their will challenge based on lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence was found to be unjustified and not supported by their own expert's opinion.

The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) sought a permanent injunction against the respondent, Vidhya Ramdas, for contravening O. Reg. 150/06 by undertaking development, including site grading and fill placement, within regulated wetland areas on her property without a permit.

Despite multiple warnings, a stop-work order, and charges, the respondent continued the unauthorized activities.

The court granted the injunction, finding a flagrant breach of the regulation, and awarded costs to the GRCA.

The accused, Kenny Seegobinsingh, applied for a bail review after being detained following a bail hearing.

The application was based on two material changes in circumstances: new proposed sureties and the global COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found both constituted material changes, allowing for a de novo bail hearing.

Considering the new sureties' credible evidence and the amplified risks of COVID-19 in institutional settings, the court determined that the proposed strict house arrest plan would sufficiently reduce the risk of re-offending and would not undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, despite the serious nature of the break and enter charges.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a further and better affidavit of documents and to compel the defendants to appear for continued examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff had previously conducted brief examinations for discovery of the individual defendants but failed to request the documents now sought.

The court dismissed the motion against the individual defendants, finding the plaintiff had his opportunity during discovery and failed to use it, and there was no evidence the requested documents were in their possession.

However, the court noted the plaintiff could still schedule an examination for discovery of the corporate defendant.

Following a trial that resulted in a shared parenting arrangement, the parties could not agree on the quantum of ongoing child support.

The respondent argued for a strict set-off amount of $715 per month based on their respective incomes.

The applicant sought a higher amount due to the disparity in their incomes and her modest expenses.

Applying section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines and the Contino framework, the court found the set-off amount inappropriate given the significant disparity in the parties' incomes and monthly expenses.

The respondent was ordered to pay $1,000 per month in child support.

The applicants challenged the validity of their late father's 2015 Will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity, suspicious circumstances, and undue influence by his common-law spouse, the respondent.

The testator executed the new Will shortly after a terminal cancer diagnosis, leaving his half-interest in the jointly owned home to the respondent, while his children still received his RRSPs and vehicle.

The court declined to convert the application to a trial, finding the documentary record sufficient.

The court held that the applicants failed to rebut the presumption of testamentary capacity, as the circumstances surrounding the Will's execution were not suspicious and there was no evidence of undue influence.

The application was dismissed and the 2015 Will was declared valid.

The plaintiff, a minority shareholder in a taxi dispatch business, brought a motion to compel the defendants to satisfy outstanding undertakings and produce financial records, and to be added as a mandatory signing officer for cheques over $500.

The court granted the request for undertakings and production, ordering the defendants to provide the requested documentation.

However, the court dismissed the request for signing authority, finding insufficient evidence of oppressive conduct or financial mismanagement to justify overriding the Unanimous Shareholder's Agreement and altering the status quo pending trial.