Madam Justice H. J. Williams

The moving party estate sought an interim order for exclusive possession and sale of a commercial/residential property co-owned by the deceased father and the responding party son.

The son opposed the sale, arguing he had an oral agreement with his father to inherit the property and that a sale would defeat his claim for sole ownership at trial.

The court granted the motion, finding the property was vacant, deteriorating, and accumulating tax arrears, and that the son's opposition did not amount to malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct by the estate that would justify refusing a sale under the Partition Act.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment seeking $1,350,000.00.

The court noted that the plaintiff was attempting to re-litigate issues that had already been decided in previous proceedings, including an action against the defendant's former lawyers.

Finding the action to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, the court dismissed both the motion and the underlying action.

During a criminal trial, a Crown witness failed to appear despite being served with a subpoena.

The Crown requested a material witness warrant under s. 705 of the Criminal Code.

The defence opposed, arguing the subpoena was invalidly issued by a court clerk without any inquiry into whether the witness had material evidence to give, as required by s. 698.

The court agreed with the defence, applying the framework from Dykstra v. Greensword, and held that issuing a subpoena without any case-specific inquiry exceeds the issuer's jurisdiction.

The subpoena was quashed and the request for a warrant was denied.

The plaintiff (ADM) sued the defendant (DW) for unpaid invoices relating to touchscreens.

DW counterclaimed for damages, alleging the touchscreens were defective.

ADM argued DW spoliated evidence by replacing the touchscreens before ADM could test them.

The court dismissed the spoliation argument, finding DW replaced the screens to mitigate damages and satisfy customers, not to affect litigation.

The court found ADM breached the implied conditions of fitness and merchantable quality under the Sale of Goods Act, as the touchscreens suffered from a manufacturing defect causing the cover sheets to collapse.

DW was awarded damages for replacement costs, labour, shipping, and engineering, less a set-off for ADM's unpaid invoices.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to enforce an interim separation agreement regarding a joint line of credit, compel outstanding financial disclosure, and request case management for a high-conflict family law proceeding.

The court ordered a structured process for the respondent to pay his share of the line of credit while ensuring his liability is extinguished.

The court also established a fixed timeline for both parties to complete financial disclosure and ordered that the proceeding be case managed.

During a personal injury trial, the plaintiff's counsel brought a motion under Rule 53.01(3) to recall the plaintiff as a witness after new documents were produced during the cross-examination of the plaintiff's family doctor.

The documents, which had not been disclosed prior to trial, contained notes and handwriting suggesting the plaintiff was attempting to manage her medical case.

The court granted the motion, finding that the interests of justice and trial fairness required giving the plaintiff an opportunity to explain the newly produced documents, and imposed restrictions on counsel's communications with the plaintiff prior to her recall.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to stay a summary judgment motion initiated by the defendants.

The trial was scheduled for May 2018, and the summary judgment motion was scheduled for March 2018.

The plaintiffs argued the motion required leave and was inappropriate.

The court found that leave was not required because the defendants had not consented to the action being placed on a trial list.

However, the court permanently stayed the summary judgment motion, finding that it would not resolve the entire action, would duplicate efforts, and could delay the scheduled trial.

The father brought a motion to change previous orders regarding child support, spousal support, and access.

The mother brought a motion to strike the father's motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules due to his failure to comply with multiple previous court orders, including failing to pay over $60,000 in support arrears and over $50,000 in an equalization payment.

The Family Responsibility Office (FRO) brought a motion to enforce the support arrears.

The court granted the mother's motion to strike, finding the father had the means to pay but chose not to, and prohibited him from bringing further motions to change without leave until all arrears and costs are paid.

The court also granted the FRO's motion, ordering the father to pay $61,292.68 in arrears within 30 days and $20,000 as security within 45 days, failing which the FRO could seek his committal.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the statement of defence filed by the defendant's brother.

The brother, who is not a lawyer, attempted to defend the action using a power of attorney for property, as the defendant resided in the UK and allegedly lacked mental capacity.

The court struck the statement of defence, holding that a power of attorney does not authorize a non-lawyer to conduct litigation on behalf of another person.

The court noted that if the defendant lacks capacity, he must be represented by a litigation guardian and a lawyer.