Marvin Kurz

The applicant sought a review of a detention order under s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code.

He faced numerous charges including human trafficking, procuring, and breaching court orders.

The court found no errors of law in the justice of the peace's initial detention order.

Although a material change in circumstances warranted a de novo review, the court concluded the applicant failed to meet his reverse onus.

Detention was deemed necessary on the secondary ground due to a substantial likelihood of reoffending, given his history of breaching orders and lack of credibility, and on the tertiary ground due to the gravity of the offences and strength of the Crown's case.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking equal shared parenting and a corresponding reduction in child support under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The respondent mother opposed, seeking to maintain the status quo of her primary care.

The court applied the newly amended Divorce Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Barendregt, noting the 'maximum contact principle' has been replaced by the 'parenting time factor' which is strictly subject to the child's best interests.

Finding the father's request was partly financially motivated and that the status quo favoured the mother, the court ordered the children to remain in the mother's primary care.

The father was ordered to pay full table child support and arrears.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $35,747.55 following cross-motions regarding parenting arrangements, mobility, and daycare.

The applicant argued entitlement to enhanced costs because he served three offers to settle that were as favourable or less favourable than the final order, pursuant to Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The respondent argued no costs should be ordered as she litigated in good faith.

The court found the applicant was entitled to full indemnity costs for the issues of parenting time and mobility from the date of his March 1, 2022 offers.

Considering proportionality and the reasonable expectations of the parties, the court fixed costs payable by the respondent to the applicant at $25,000.

In a construction lien action, the defendant homeowners moved to amend their statement of defence and counterclaim and to substitute the affidavit evidence of a new expert witness for one who died after preparing his report.

The plaintiff contractor opposed the motion, arguing that the amendments would cause prejudice and delay the summary nature of the proceedings.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate non-compensable prejudice and that it was in the interests of justice to allow the defendants to rely on a live expert witness and fully articulate their claims regarding newly discovered deficiencies.

The plaintiff was awarded $10,000 in costs thrown away.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment to collect the $69,090.92 balance of an unpaid loan used by the defendant to purchase securities.

The defendant counterclaimed, alleging the bank was responsible for the fraudulent actions of her investment advisor and breached a fiduciary duty.

The court granted summary judgment for the bank and dismissed the counterclaim, finding no evidence that the bank was responsible for the advisor's actions and affirming that a standard debtor-creditor relationship does not create a fiduciary duty.

The applicant wife sought interim child and spousal support.

The court determined the appropriate formula for child support for a child attending university away from home, setting it at the mid-point between the full table amount and the summer formula.

The court also ordered spousal support at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) range due to the long-term marriage, the wife's post-separation financial disadvantage, and the husband's failure to pay proper support or provide full disclosure.

Arrears for both child and spousal support were calculated and ordered.

The applicant bank sought to enforce a default judgment by applying for a reference and judicial sale of the respondent's real property under the Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than proceeding with a standard sheriff's sale under the Execution Act.

The applicant argued that judicial sales are generally superior and more cost-effective, relying on an affidavit from its counsel's partner.

The court dismissed the application, reaffirming its previous decision in Wong that a sheriff's sale is the statutorily prescribed method for enforcing a writ of seizure and sale against real property, and a judicial sale should only be ordered in special circumstances, which were not present here.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, including retroactive support dating back to the parties' 2019 separation.

The husband, who had been the primary earner during their 25-year marriage, paid no support for over two years after separation despite earning substantial income.

The court found the husband engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to pay support and ordered interim child and spousal support retroactive to January 1, 2021.

Issues of intentional underemployment and exact quantum were deferred to trial or further submissions.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the Applicant's motion to change a consent order regarding child and spousal support.

The Respondent, Kenneth Forbes, sought full indemnity costs.

The court found the Applicant, Lisa Forbes, engaged in unreasonable litigation conduct, including making false allegations and pursuing an ill-conceived claim under Family Law Rule 1(8).

Despite the Respondent being self-represented, he received significant assistance from counsel, and the court found his costs claim reasonable.

The court awarded costs of $50,000 to the Respondent, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable within 30 days, rejecting the Applicant's arguments for reduced costs based on her financial circumstances.

The applicant father sought primary care and sole decision-making for his 11-year-old daughter following the mother's death from brain cancer.

The maternal grandparents, with whom the child had primarily resided for most of her life, opposed this, seeking to maintain the status quo.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" principle under the Divorce Act, rejected the father's claim of a "right of joint custodial survivorship" and found that the child's need for stability and continuity favored remaining in the grandparents' primary care.

The court granted interim primary care and final decision-making to the grandparents, while establishing a parenting schedule for the father and ordering mediation.

The plaintiff alleged it was defrauded into depositing funds into a TD Bank account and commenced an action against the bank and a 'John Doe' defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an order requiring the bank to disclose the identity of the account holder to advance the litigation.

The court granted the motion, finding that the disclosure was in the interests of justice and could be ordered by analogy to the discovery rules under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant father brought an interim motion for partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, seeking to defer the issue to trial where she intends to request a time-limited order for exclusive possession.

The mother also asserted substantial claims for retroactive support and equalization payments, which could be satisfied by the father's interest in the home.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding the immediate sale premature.

The decision emphasized the attenuated principles for interim partition and sale of a matrimonial home, requiring a holistic review that considers the best interests of the children and potential prejudice to the responding party's legitimate family law claims, such as exclusive possession or equalization.

The court noted the parties' prior promise to the children to allow them to remain in the home, the imminence of trial, and the lack of clear practical advantage to the father in an immediate sale, as proceeds would likely be held in trust.

This endorsement from a settlement conference in a high-conflict family law case primarily addresses parenting issues.

The court vacated the respondent father's scheduled long motion concerning parenting arrangements, citing his non-compliance with procedural rules (failure to serve notice of motion and file a timetable agreement) and the principle of proportionality.

The court emphasized that bringing multiple motions on the same issue in quick succession, especially after a prior interim order, is contrary to the Family Law Rules and the access to justice principles articulated in Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The judge also noted the high bar for varying interim parenting orders and the application of issue estoppel.

The case was reluctantly placed on the fall 2022 trial blitz, and any future motions require leave of the court.

Directions were also given for questioning and financial disclosure related to a jointly owned cottage.

This endorsement addresses the applicant father's motion to change child support, seeking retrospective and prospective support for the parties' child.

The father sought to impute income to the respondent mother at minimum wage after the shared parenting arrangement ended and the child came into his primary care.

The mother opposed, citing low income due to pandemic-related layoff, and sought a set-off for alleged past underpayments by the father.

The court found the father had underpaid support by $3,070 due to income increases and a change in Child Support Guidelines tables.

However, the court also found the father had overpaid by $1,831.69 after the parenting change.

The court imputed income of $30,000 per year to the mother from January 1, 2021, finding her intentionally underemployed despite her reasons for not seeking alternative work.

The mother was ordered to pay net retroactive and retrospective child support arrears of $6,221.21, along with ongoing monthly table support and a portion of special expenses.

No costs were awarded due to mixed success and the father's lack of timely disclosure.

The accused, D.M., was charged with historical sexual exploitation and sexual assault of his 16-year-old niece.

The court applied the principles of R. v. W.(D.) regarding credibility and reasonable doubt.

The complainant's evidence was found credible and reliable despite defence challenges.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault, concluding that the Crown proved intentional application of force, lack of consent, knowledge of non-consent, and sexual nature of the act beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the accused was acquitted of sexual exploitation, as the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant.

This motion concerned the defendants' application to set aside a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) previously granted ex parte against their property.

The defendants argued material non-disclosure by the plaintiff, lack of plaintiff's assets to cover potential damages, and improper use of the CPL as pre-judgment execution.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts in the ex parte motion, including the true nature of his claim, his financial capacity to meet damages, the unsigned nature of the underlying agreement, and the absence of key contractual terms (deadlines, subcontractor prohibitions).

Consequently, the court vacated the CPL due to this material non-disclosure, emphasizing the strict duty of candour required in ex parte proceedings.

The court also briefly considered the test for CPLs in fraudulent conveyance actions without a prior judgment, finding that even on that test, the CPL should be discharged.

The plaintiff in a medical malpractice action moved to consolidate his action with two other related actions: a motor vehicle accident (MVA) action in which he was the defendant, and a long-term disability (LTD) action brought by the MVA plaintiff.

The court applied the test for consolidation under Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding significant overlap between the MVA and LTD actions, the court ordered them to be tried together.

However, due to the early procedural stage of the malpractice action and the prejudice delay would cause to the MVA plaintiff's income loss claim under the Insurance Act, the court declined to strictly consolidate the malpractice action, ordering it to be tried with the others only if it is ready in time.

The parties brought cross-motions for interim relief in a family law proceeding.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, while the father sought sole or shared parenting, partition and sale of the matrimonial home, and occupation rent.

The court granted the mother final decision-making responsibility after consultation with the father, noting the history of domestic violence and the father's failure to accept responsibility.

The court dismissed the father's requests to change the supervised parenting schedule, finding no exceptional circumstances to vary the existing interim order.

The father's claims for partition and sale and occupation rent were also dismissed as premature and inappropriate on an interim basis.

The applicant commercial tenant sought a mandatory interlocutory injunction to regain possession of leased premises after being locked out by the respondent landlord for unpaid rent.

The landlord argued the tenant was improperly receiving federal pandemic rent subsidies while failing to pay full rent, invoking the doctrine of ex turpi causa.

The court granted the injunction, finding the landlord violated the clear statutory moratorium on commercial evictions under the Commercial Tenancies Act, and ordered the landlord to restore possession to the tenant upon payment of a specified sum towards arrears.

The applicant scheduled a motion as a 59-minute short motion, despite filing voluminous materials that clearly indicated it was a long motion.

The parties settled the motion before it was heard.

The court issued an endorsement reprimanding the practice of 'jumping the queue' by improperly scheduling long motions as short ones, noting it wastes scarce judicial resources and harms other litigants.

The court warned that future instances of this practice may result in costs consequences under the Family Law Rules.