Martin S. James

The respondent law firm brought a motion to vary an Order for Assessment of a series of legal accounts delivered to the applicant estate trustees over a 12-year period.

The law firm argued the accounts were final and paid, while the client argued they were interim and thus assessable.

The court held that the older accounts, which related to completed matters and had been paid years prior, were final and not liable to assessment.

However, the more recent accounts relating to ongoing litigation were deemed interim and remained liable to assessment.

The Order for Assessment was varied accordingly.

The applicant brought a motion for child support and disclosure, while the respondent sought a shared parenting arrangement for their two youngest children.

The court ordered ongoing child support based on the respondent's current income but declined to order retroactive support on a temporary basis due to conflicting evidence.

The court dismissed the respondent's request for a week-about parenting schedule, finding it was not in the children's best interests, and maintained the status quo of alternating weekends with a mid-week visit.

The accused, a 74-year-old retiree, was charged with kidnapping, uttering threats, aggravated assault, and attempted murder against his former partner.

After their separation, the accused drove the complainant to a secluded wooded area against her will, threatened to run her over if she escaped, and stabbed her in the abdomen and neck.

The court applied the W.D. framework to resolve conflicting testimony, rejecting the accused's claim of self-defence.

The accused was found guilty of kidnapping, uttering threats, and aggravated assault, but acquitted of attempted murder as the Crown failed to prove a specific intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused brought Charter applications to exclude evidence obtained during a traffic stop and subsequent searches of cell phones and a vehicle GPS device following a home invasion robbery.

The court found no breaches of the accused's rights under ss. 8, 9, or 10 of the Charter during the initial stop and arrest.

The court also upheld the validity of the search warrants and production orders.

Although the police failed to file a timely report to justice for the seized items, the court assumed a s. 8 breach but admitted the evidence under s. 24(2), finding the breach was not serious and the evidence was highly reliable and important to the prosecution.

This is a costs endorsement following the Applicant's successful motion to enforce a 2011 final order.

The Applicant sought costs on various bases, but the court found that her offer to settle lacked a meaningful element of compromise, thus not triggering enhanced costs recovery.

The court also noted that motions brought without notice generally do not expose the opposing party to costs liability.

While the Applicant's hourly rates were reasonable, the time spent was considered high for a short motion.

The court reiterated that partial recovery is the norm and impecuniosity is not a reason to deny costs.

Ultimately, the Applicant was awarded $3,000.00 in costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

The Applicant brought an urgent motion for the return of T.G.M.C., an adult child with significant developmental challenges, to her primary care.

The Respondent had retained T.G.M.C. in his care, defying an existing sole custody order, arguing that the order was unenforceable as T.G.M.C. had turned 18 and that her return to in-class learning was not in her best interests due to health concerns.

The court found it had inherent jurisdiction over vulnerable adults and ordered the immediate return of T.G.M.C. to the Applicant's care, affirming the existing custody order's continued force.

The applicant, a minority shareholder in a closely-held corporation operating a minor hockey tournament, sought an oppression remedy against the two other shareholders.

The respondents, dissatisfied with the applicant's performance, attempted to force him to sell his shares and subsequently dissolved the corporation to exclude him while continuing the business through a new entity.

The court found that the respondents breached their fiduciary duties to the corporation and acted oppressively by dissolving the corporation for the improper purpose of eliminating the applicant.

The court awarded the applicant special damages based on the agreed valuation formula and general damages for the oppressive conduct.

The applicant brought a motion for contempt of court after the respondent refused to return the children following a summer access visit.

The contempt motion was resolved substantially on consent after the respondent retained counsel.

The court treated the motion as one to enforce a court order.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $2,883.12.

The court found the respondent's conduct necessitated the motion but declined to award substantial indemnity costs due to the consent resolution.

Costs were fixed at $1,700 payable by the respondent.

The defendants, a police detective and the Crown, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for negligent investigation.

The plaintiff, a former police officer, alleged that the detective lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him for domestic violence offences and relied on unreliable complainants.

The court found that the detective conducted a comprehensive investigation, consulted with supervisors and the Crown, and met the standard of care of a reasonable police officer.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed, as there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The respondent brought a motion to change seeking to adjust his child support and life insurance obligations, and to impute income to the applicant.

The applicant, who receives income replacement benefits from Veteran's Affairs Canada, opposed the motion and sought increased support and section 7 expenses.

The court terminated child support for the older child who had graduated, adjusted support for the younger child, and declined to impute income to the applicant, finding she was not deliberately under-employed.

The court also reduced the respondent's life insurance obligation and resolved various disputed post-secondary education expenses.

The moving party brought a motion for a temporary reduction of his spousal support obligation pending a full hearing on his Motion to Change, citing his medical release from the military and reliance on pension income.

The responding party brought a cross-motion for financial disclosure.

Applying the test for interim variation, the court found the moving party failed to establish urgency or hardship, and noted his failure to provide accurate and ongoing financial disclosure.

The motion for a temporary reduction in support was dismissed, and both parties were ordered to provide updated financial disclosure.

The applicant father brought a motion for a temporary order granting him sole custody of two of his children, alleging parental alienation by the respondent mother.

The court reviewed extensive evidence, including reports from child protection workers, and found that the mother was intentionally engaging in parental alienation strategies to distance the children from their father.

Concluding that the children's expressed resistance to access was scripted and did not reflect their true feelings, the court ordered a temporary reversal of primary residence, granting sole custody to the father with restricted, supervised access for the mother.

The respondent father brought a motion to change the custody provisions of a 2013 final order and requested a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The applicant mother opposed, arguing no material change in circumstances, bad faith, and parental manipulation.

The court dismissed the motion for an assessment, emphasizing the long-standing status quo of primary parenting by the mother, previous consent orders, and concerns about the father's manipulation, concluding that an assessment was not warranted.

The accused, Albert Tremblay and Amanda Ruddy, applied for directed verdicts of not guilty on multiple counts, arguing the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case.

The court granted directed verdicts for counts related to possession of stolen property (chainsaws) due to lack of recent possession evidence, and for fraud counts due to absence of economic deprivation to the pharmacies.

However, the court denied directed verdicts for a count of possession of property obtained by crime (cash), and for counts of illegal possession of narcotics (fentanyl and oxycodone), finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to proceed to a jury.

The accused was tried on an indictment alleging multiple historical sexual offences against the complainant during her childhood and adolescence.

The court reviewed the complainant’s evidence, corroborative contextual evidence from her mother, and the accused’s denial.

While the court found the complainant testified in a straightforward manner and accepted that delayed disclosure was not unusual, reliability concerns remained regarding chronology, opportunity, and the mechanics of certain alleged incidents.

Applying the criminal standard of proof, the court concluded the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and entered acquittals on all counts.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings or, alternatively, for an order excluding evidence due to alleged Charter violations.

The application concerned two main issues: lost police photographs from a search and unlawfully obtained/undisclosed medical prescription records.

The court found that the loss of photographs did not constitute unacceptable negligence or prejudice the defence, thus denying their exclusion.

However, the court determined that two specific prescription documents (Exhibits #26 and #27) were unlawfully seized without a production order, infringing the accused's privacy rights under sections 7 and 8 of the Charter, and were not disclosed in a timely fashion.

Applying the Grant factors, these two exhibits were deemed inadmissible.

A stay of proceedings was not warranted as the Charter-infringing conduct did not amount to an abuse of process.

The moving party brought a motion for an order to sell the parties' jointly owned, unfinished matrimonial home prior to trial, for a Voice of the Child Report, and for leave to amend her answer to claim spousal support.

The court dismissed the request for the sale of the home due to uncertainty regarding its current equity and because it currently houses the parties' child, noting that a new motion could be brought once an updated appraisal is obtained.

The court granted the requests for a Voice of the Child Report and for leave to amend the answer to claim spousal support.

The accused, P.L., was charged with sexual exploitation and sexual assault involving his 16-year-old great-niece, G.F. The incident occurred at P.L.'s home after G.F. had consumed alcohol.

The court found P.L. not guilty of sexual exploitation, as the Crown failed to prove a position of trust or authority or dependency.

However, P.L. was found guilty of sexual assault based on G.F.'s credible testimony, corroborated by DNA evidence and physical bruising, establishing that sexual activity occurred without G.F.'s consent while she was intoxicated and vulnerable.

The applicant, an elector, brought an application under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act alleging that the respondent municipal councillor had an indirect pecuniary interest when he voted to support a proposed nuclear waste facility.

The respondent was employed by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), the proponent of the facility.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that CNL had a pecuniary interest in the project, as there was insufficient evidence regarding CNL's financial arrangements and remuneration.

The applicants brought an application under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to have the respondent declared a vexatious litigant.

The respondent, a resident of the applicant co-operative, had initiated multiple overlapping and unsuccessful proceedings against the applicants over several years, accumulating unpaid costs orders.

The court found that the respondent's conduct was oppressive, intended for improper purposes, and consumed a disproportionate share of judicial resources.

The application was granted, and the respondent was prohibited from initiating or continuing proceedings without leave of the court.