Mandhane

The Applicant Father sought to exclude private investigator surveillance evidence obtained by the Respondent Mother, arguing she failed to provide complete disclosure of the investigators' files despite multiple court orders.

The Mother sought leave to admit the evidence under Rule 53.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the Mother's failure to disclose the complete file prejudiced the Father's ability to assess the evidence and prepare for trial.

Given the highly prejudicial nature of the videos, the lack of full disclosure, and the inability to cross-examine the investigators, the court excluded the surveillance evidence in its entirety, including for the purpose of impeachment.

The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's $2,000,000 action for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff, a contractor, sought additional payment for delays and increased costs incurred during a window replacement project at a maximum-security penitentiary.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory dispute resolution and notice provisions under the general contract after the government rejected its claim.

The plaintiff moved for default judgment against the defendant website owner for defamation.

The alleged defamatory statements appeared in an English translation of a Chinese article, generated automatically when a user clicked an embedded Google Translate widget.

The court dismissed the action, holding that providing a free, automated translation widget does not constitute 'publication' of the translated text by the website owner, as the acts merely transmit information in a content-neutral way without expression, adoption, or endorsement.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for interim parenting time with his two young children.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, citing concerns about the children's exposure to family violence and the father's erratic behaviour.

The court applied the newly amended Divorce Act, emphasizing a human rights-based approach and the impact of family violence on the children's best interests.

The court ordered a slight increase in the father's parenting time, largely adopting the mother's proposed schedule with strict conditions, but allowing contact with the children's half-sibling.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim relief seeking increased access to the children, the sale of the matrimonial home, and the return of belongings.

The respondent father opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion for retroactive and ongoing child support.

The court granted the mother's request for increased access, finding it in the children's best interests to spend roughly equal time with both parents.

The court also ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home to allow the mother to secure appropriate housing.

The mother was ordered to pay interim child support, including arrears, given her employment and shared custody arrangement.

The applicant mother sought the return of her child to the Czech Republic pursuant to the Hague Convention after the respondent father removed the child to Canada without her consent.

The father initially opposed the return, claiming the child's habitual residence was Canada and that the child objected to returning.

An independent assessment revealed the child wished to return to the Czech Republic.

The court found the child was habitually resident in the Czech Republic, the mother had custody rights, and the removal was wrongful.

The court ordered the immediate return of the child to the Czech Republic.

The moving party sought to validate her marriage to an elderly man with worsening dementia, which was challenged by the responding party, the man's son.

The son had previously obtained a guardianship order in the wife's absence and alleged the marriage was predatory.

The court found that the son failed to adduce sufficient evidence that his father lacked the capacity to marry on the date of the wedding.

The court placed little weight on retrospective expert assessments and relied on direct evidence of the couple's long-term relationship and the father's understanding of the marriage.

The marriage was declared valid, and the son was ordered to pay $50,000 in full indemnity costs due to his egregious conduct.

The plaintiff claimed beneficial ownership of two residential properties legally owned by the defendant, relying on alleged express trust documents or, alternatively, an equitable trust.

The court found the express trust documents were forgeries.

However, based on the parties' joint venture to flip the properties and their respective financial contributions to acquisition, maintenance, and improvements, the court imposed constructive trusts.

The plaintiff was awarded an 81 percent beneficial interest in one property and a 32 percent beneficial interest in the other to remedy unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend his Statement of Claim to include a claim for unpaid commission from 2016 and to compel the defendant to produce audited financial statements for 2016, 2017, and 2018.

The court granted the motion to amend, finding that the limitation period had not expired because the plaintiff only discovered the potential claim during mediation.

The court also ordered the production of the financial statements, subject to confidentiality conditions, as they were highly relevant to calculating the plaintiff's commission and the summary auditor's letter provided by the defendant was insufficient.

The applicant, the official agent for a federal candidate, brought an application to extend the time to file election returns under the Canada Elections Act.

The returns were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and miscommunications with an accounting firm.

The court first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the matter in Orangeville despite the riding being in Toronto, noting the urgency and lack of opposition.

The court granted the extension, finding the failure to file on time was not deliberate and the applicant had exercised due diligence.

The plaintiff corporation brought an action for the tort of conversion against the defendant, who received millions of dollars in Apple products purchased fraudulently by the plaintiff's employee using corporate funds.

The defendant did not attend the trial.

The court found the defendant liable for conversion, as he received, transferred, and sold the products without the plaintiff's permission, thereby negating the plaintiff's possessory interest.

The court awarded damages of over $2.7 million, plus prejudgment interest and costs, and extended a Mareva injunction against the defendant.

The unmarried parents of a five-year-old child both sought sole custody and primary residency following a high-conflict separation.

The mother had been the de facto custodial parent since separation.

The court found that the parents' inability to communicate necessitated a sole custody order.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted the mother sole custody and primary residency, noting her role as the primary caregiver and her sound judgment regarding the child's care.

The father was granted regular access and ordered to pay child support.