Marvin Kurz

Two subcontractors sued a prime contractor for breach of oral contracts relating to a municipal winter road maintenance contract.

The plaintiffs alleged their arrangements to supply trucks and operators were for the same five‑season duration as the contractor’s agreement with the municipality, while the defendant argued the arrangements were terminable at will.

The court held that the parties’ conduct, including deposits corresponding to the five‑year municipal contract and payment structures flowing from that contract, objectively demonstrated fixed‑term agreements.

The defendant’s termination after one season constituted breach of contract.

Damages representing lost profits for the remaining four seasons, subject to mitigation, were awarded.

The respondent brought a motion for contempt of court against the applicant, alleging breaches of a consent order dated September 17, 2012.

The applicant opposed the contempt motion and brought a cross-motion to strike portions of the respondent's materials.

The court struck two of three paragraphs of the contempt motion as improper and struck portions of the applicant's affidavit containing inadmissible evidence.

The contempt motion proceeded only regarding an alleged breach of paragraph 3 of the order.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the order ambiguous regarding the interaction between paragraphs 3 and 4.

However, the court found the respondent's conduct unreasonable in that he engaged in the same behavior he had criticized the applicant for—discussing major parenting changes with the child without consulting the other parent.

Consequently, despite being the successful party, the respondent was denied costs.

The respondent brought a motion to vary prior support orders seeking termination of spousal support, reduction of child support, and elimination of certain section 7 expenses based on an alleged reduction in income.

The applicant conceded termination of spousal support but sought a later termination date, an increase in child support, and additional section 7 expenses including private school tuition and tutoring.

The court found the evidence insufficient to establish a material change in the respondent’s income and maintained the previously determined income for child support purposes.

The court terminated spousal support effective April 30, 2012, removed the respondent’s obligation to contribute to nanny expenses, and declined to order contributions for private school tuition or tutoring as necessary section 7 expenses.

The court also reduced the life insurance security amount following termination of spousal support.

The appellant mother appealed a summary judgment order making her infant child a Crown Ward with no access for the purposes of adoption.

The motion judge had relied heavily on a past parenting capacity assessment and historical child protection involvement, while dismissing the mother's new evidence, which included a recent psychological assessment and a plan of care with her new partner.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in granting summary judgment because the mother had presented sufficient conflicting evidence that required a trial.

The court ordered an expedited trial to determine the child's disposition.

The applicant sought temporary spousal support in a family law application.

The respondent brought a motion to transfer the proceedings to the Superior Court of Justice, arguing that property issues required adjudication.

The Ontario Court of Justice granted the applicant temporary spousal support of $559 per month and transferred the matter to Superior Court.

The applicant sought costs of the motion.

The court awarded nominal costs of $2,500 to the applicant, payable by the respondent forthwith and enforceable as support, considering the significant income disparity between the parties and the applicant's success on the motion.

Following dismissal of a motion to vary and a finding of contempt for failure to comply with a prior order regarding sale of the matrimonial home, the court addressed costs.

The successful party sought substantial indemnity costs based on alleged bad faith and unreasonable conduct.

The court held that although substantial indemnity costs had been awarded on an earlier related motion, no offer to settle had been served in relation to the present motion.

Considering the circumstances, including substantial success and the duplication of issues previously litigated, the court fixed costs on a reduced basis.

Costs were ordered in a lump sum of $15,000 all inclusive.

The moving party sought to vary a prior interim order requiring monthly payments of $10,000 to the responding party, requesting a reduction and other financial relief including imputation of income and disclosure orders.

The responding party brought a cross‑motion seeking to strike the moving party’s pleadings for repeated breaches of court orders and to have him found in contempt.

The court found the moving party had failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances and had not provided sufficient financial disclosure to justify a variation.

The court also found beyond a reasonable doubt that the moving party wilfully failed to comply with an order requiring the matrimonial home to be listed for sale and made a finding of contempt.

The variation motion was dismissed, the payments were characterized as child and spousal support based on an imputed income of $350,000, and arrears were fixed and payable from the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home.