Marc R. Labrosse

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their Statement of Claim to add the defendants' counsel and the individual defendant's parents as parties, alleging they received trust funds from the sale of a property.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that adding the defendants' counsel would cause non-compensable prejudice by depriving the defendants of their counsel of choice in complex, intertwined litigation.

The plaintiffs also sought costs for a withdrawn production motion regarding bank records.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $4,000 in partial indemnity costs thrown away, as the defendants had failed to produce the records in the required format until after the motion was brought.

The applicant, a PhD student, was withdrawn from her program after receiving two unsatisfactory progress reports.

She appealed the withdrawal to the Faculty and then to the Senate Appeals Committee, both of which dismissed her appeals.

She sought judicial review, arguing procedural unfairness and unreasonableness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no manifest unfairness in the university's robust evaluation process and holding that the Senate Appeals Committee decision was reasonable and sufficiently grappled with the central issues.

The appellant tenant appealed a consent eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal and lift the stay of the eviction order.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the appellant failed to seek the required leave to appeal a consent order under section 133(a) of the Courts of Justice Act and failed to file the appeal within the 30-day statutory period.

The stay of the eviction order was lifted.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of an LTB eviction order and to quash the tenants' appeal.

The LTB had ordered eviction and $50,000 in damages due to rent arrears and severe property damage caused by the tenants keeping 76 to 150 cats in the unit.

The Divisional Court found the notice of appeal was devoid of merit, raised no valid question of law, and constituted an abuse of process designed solely to delay eviction while the tenants lived rent-free.

The appeal was quashed and the stay lifted, with the eviction to be enforced within 30 days.

In a family law proceeding, both parties brought motions for disclosure and for the partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The court ordered the respondent to provide daycare provider contact information and to request hospital records relating to alleged family violence, subject to a Wigmore analysis.

The applicant was ordered to disclose correspondence sent to third parties concerning the respondent and to provide a will-say statement detailing his claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The court also set the terms for the listing and sale of the matrimonial home, ordering it to be listed for $350,000 with the net proceeds to be held in trust pending further order.

The plaintiff, as sole beneficiary of his mother's estate, brought actions against his stepfather to enforce a mutual wills agreement and recover property and funds.

The defendant moved for summary judgment and to dismiss the actions under Rule 21, arguing they were statute-barred, the court lacked jurisdiction, and the plaintiff lacked capacity.

The plaintiff moved to consolidate his personal action with a subsequent action brought on behalf of the estate.

The court dismissed the defendant's motions, finding genuine issues for trial regarding limitation periods, discoverability, and the nature of the trust created by the agreement.

The court also confirmed the Superior Court's jurisdiction and the plaintiff's capacity to sue.

The plaintiff's motion was granted in part, ordering the actions to be tried together with distinct pleadings.

This costs endorsement follows an 8-day trial in a family law matter concerning parenting, decision-making, child support arrears, and equalization.

The applicant was substantially successful on the most important issues, including parenting capacity and the date of separation, but was unsuccessful on imputed income and equalization claims.

The respondent's unreasonable conduct, unstable personal circumstances, and unrealistic positions significantly complicated the proceedings.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant but reduced the claimed amount due to excessive hourly rates charged by Toronto counsel and applied to an Ottawa matter.

Damages claims for family violence were rejected as inappropriate and unsettled in law.

This is a costs decision following a six-day family law trial that commenced in January 2024 and concluded in April 2024.

The respondent was the successful party on virtually all issues.

The court awarded costs to the respondent, finding that while the respondent was entitled to costs as the successful party, the amount claimed was excessive and not properly itemized.

The court reduced the costs award to account for proportionality and the financial circumstances of the applicant, who remains burdened with significant debt and child support arrears.

This decision addresses the terms of a court-ordered buy-sell process between two dental practice shareholders following a deadlock.

The court determined that it would not fix the value of the dental practice for the buy-sell notice and rejected the applicant's request for a price reduction based on the respondent's role as the working dentist.

The court found that the parties' negotiated draft shareholders' agreement, which included differential non-competition provisions, adequately protected the applicant's interests.

The final buy-sell notice was approved with only the purchase prices to be inserted by each party.

The plaintiff brought an action for defamation arising from a Facebook post made by his ex-wife, the defendant, approximately two years after the end of their roughly ten-year marriage.

The defendant counterclaimed for defamation and sexual battery.

The parties had lived in Los Angeles and were involved in the online gaming and pornography industries.

Their marriage was polyamorous in nature.

The defendant's Facebook post alleged that the plaintiff had sexually, physically, and emotionally abused her and other women during their marriage.

The court found that while many of the defendant's statements were truthful or constituted fair comment, certain statements regarding sexual assault, physical violence, and lack of consent were defamatory and not supported by the evidence.

The court dismissed the defendant's counterclaim for sexual battery, finding insufficient evidence of non-consensual sexual activity.

The plaintiff was awarded general damages for defamation.

The College of Nurses of Ontario requested the dismissal of the applicant's motion to set aside a previous order under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The previous order had dismissed the applicant's motion to extend the time to bring an application for judicial review of a disciplinary caution.

The court found that the applicant's motion to set aside was brought out of time, failed to address the substantive issues of delay, and made baseless allegations of bias and misconduct against the motion judge and opposing counsel.

Concluding that the motion was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, the court dismissed the proceeding.

The court considered motions for costs personally against George Windsor, who commenced proceedings on behalf of Gilles Jozias Overtveld and Gi-Las Management and Maintenance Ltd. without proper authority.

The action was found to be duplicative, meritless, and a waste of resources.

The court fixed costs on a substantial indemnity basis against Mr. Windsor personally, disallowed him from charging legal fees to the plaintiffs, and set out the principles for awarding costs in such circumstances.

This decision addresses the division of proceeds and adjustments following the partition and sale of jointly owned property at 7 Main Street, Odessa, Ontario.

The court considers the parties’ respective claims for adjustments, including occupation rent, reimbursement for expenses, and capital contributions.

The court orders that the respondent be reimbursed for half of his maintenance and repair costs, and that both parties share equally in increased mortgage interest payments since the mortgage expired.

The respondent is given 30 days to negotiate a buyout of the applicant’s interest, failing which the property will be listed for sale.

The court remains seized of the sale process to resolve any disputes.

The court addresses a family law dispute between Chadia Abou-Assaly and Mounir El-Saikali, involving issues of decision-making responsibility, child support, equalization of net family property, and resulting trust claims over two properties.

The court finds that the applicant is entitled to a 50% beneficial interest in both the Foxden and Forestglade properties by way of resulting trust, sets the date of separation as August 13, 2019, and orders child support and arrears based on imputed income.

The court also addresses the respondent's self-represented status, disclosure failures, and the need for further proceedings to finalize equalization and support calculations.

The court considered two motions: (1) by the Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim (the 501 Parties) for leave to file a Fresh as Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, and (2) by the Plaintiffs/Defendants by Counterclaim (the 2B Parties) for a further and better Affidavit of Documents.

The court granted the 501 Parties' motion, finding no abuse of process or limitation period bar, and authorized the Amended Pleading.

The court also largely granted the 2B Parties' request for further production, ordering disclosure of missing bank records and email attachments, and set out a process for resolving any further disputes over redactions or missing documents.

The court considered an application under the Partition Act for the sale of a jointly owned property in Odessa, Ontario.

The applicant, Caralee Madelyn Paul, sought partition and sale of the property she co-owned with the respondent, Jeffrey Dean Baker.

The court reviewed the parties’ financial contributions, the trust agreement, and the circumstances of the property’s acquisition.

The court found that both parties were 50% beneficial owners and that the applicant was entitled to partition and sale, subject to accounting for contributions and adjustments.

The court rejected arguments based on resulting trust, unjust enrichment, and oppression, and set out a process for adjustments, potential buyout, and sale.

Le jugement porte sur la qualification des contributions financières faites par Sylvain Laplante à Karen Bellemare lors de leur relation de fait, notamment en lien avec l'achat et l'entretien d'une résidence.

Le tribunal conclut que les contributions de Laplante ne constituaient pas un loyer, mais donnaient plutôt ouverture à une fiducie résultoire et à une réparation pour enrichissement sans cause, en raison de l'absence d'intention de donation et de la contribution substantielle de Laplante à la mise de fonds et aux dépenses de la propriété.

La décision détaille les critères applicables à la fiducie résultoire, à l'enrichissement sans cause et à la coentreprise familiale, et fixe la compensation monétaire due.

This decision concerns the penalty phase of a contempt motion in a high-conflict family law matter.

The Respondent mother sought a declaration that the Applicant father was in breach of several paragraphs of a final order regarding parenting time, communication, and information sharing.

The court found the Applicant in contempt for multiple breaches, including failing to comply with parenting time provisions, disseminating information contrary to the order, and contacting the child surreptitiously.

The court concluded that the Applicant’s right to progress to unsupervised parenting time is suspended pending a Motion to Change, given his ongoing defiance and lack of remorse.

The matter is to proceed to a focused Motion to Change, with case management to ensure a manageable evidentiary record.

The applicant sought costs against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario after successfully bringing an application for judicial review.

The Tribunal had erroneously dismissed her human rights application for failing to comply with case assessment directions, despite her having filed the required documents.

The Tribunal consented to the judicial review but opposed the request for costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the request for costs, finding that the Tribunal's error was made in the course of its administrative functions and that it did not assume an adversarial role in the proceedings.

No costs were awarded.

The appellant was convicted of operating a conveyance over 80.

The appeal concerned whether the trial judge erred in finding a valid Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand existed, even after excising a compelled statement about alcohol consumption.

The appellant argued the trial judge replaced a subjective/objective test with an objective/objective test for the officer's grounds.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly assessed the officer's subjective belief, considering the circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable police officer, and that the finding of subjective reasonable suspicion was supported by evidence even without the compelled statement.