Mary Anne Cummings

The appellant challenged an order striking the statement of claim as vexatious and abusive under procedural rules.

The court rejected all grounds, including complaints about evidentiary use and refusal of leave to amend, and upheld dismissal.

The court considered a motion by the defendants to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim as vexatious and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff, Susan Lorraine Jones-Moore, brought a civil action against her former spouse and related corporate defendants, alleging a range of torts including stalking, invasion of privacy, sexual harassment, libel, and slander, much of which overlapped with issues previously litigated in family court.

The court found that the claim was largely an attempt to re-litigate matters already resolved or statute-barred, and that the pleadings were deficient, speculative, and unsupported by material facts.

The claim was dismissed as vexatious and an abuse of the court’s process.

The plaintiff brought an uncontested motion for costs following successful motions for a vesting order and a finding of contempt against the defendant estate trustee.

The defendant had failed to comply with a previous court order to transfer property to the plaintiff, who was acting as litigation guardian for two minor beneficiaries.

The court found exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from standard estate costs rules due to the defendant's contemptuous conduct and the plaintiff's vulnerability.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $16,920.20.

The respondent brought a motion for temporary spousal support.

The parties, who cohabited for a significant period, had a complex financial arrangement involving a jointly-owned company and the applicant's employment income, which was historically split.

The respondent sought to continue the equalization of income, arguing it stemmed from a joint venture.

The applicant acknowledged entitlement to non-compensatory spousal support but argued for imputation of income to the respondent and adherence to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs).

The court declined to impute income to the respondent at the interim stage due to conflicting evidence and the need for a trial.

The court also rejected the respondent's request for an equal division of income as a property claim not suitable for an interim spousal support motion.

Applying the SSAGs, and considering the respondent's disproportionate benefit from dividend income covering his rent, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent temporary spousal support of $2,000 per month.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment to enforce a collateral mortgage on an Ontario property owned by the defendant wife, which secured a loan to her husband's company.

A New York court had previously found the personal guarantees valid.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice declined to apply issue estoppel, finding it would work an injustice.

The court held the mortgage was unenforceable because it was the product of presumed undue influence by the husband, of which the plaintiff had constructive notice, and the plaintiff failed to ensure the wife received independent legal advice.

The action was dismissed.

Northridge Homes Ltd. sought costs after successfully vacating an improper court order that had discharged construction liens based on a sham financial guarantee bond.

The defendants (Motel and Grewals) did not dispute Northridge's entitlement to costs but challenged the quantum.

The defendants also brought a motion under Rule 57.07(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to have their former counsel, Wilford Professional Corporation, held responsible for any costs awarded against them.

The court awarded Northridge $9,000 in all-inclusive costs, reduced from the requested amount due to delay and lack of settlement efforts.

The court further found that Wilford Professional Corporation, through default in ensuring the bond's validity, caused the costs to be incurred without reasonable cause and ordered them to reimburse the defendants for the $9,000.

The applicant, Julie Ellen Madill, brought a motion for temporary spousal support, life insurance, and security for support, along with costs.

The respondent, Randall Scott Madill, brought a cross-motion for disclosure and accountings.

The court found the respondent's reported income unreliable due to personal expenses being paid through his business, Madill Construction, and imputed an income of $125,000 for support purposes.

The court awarded the applicant temporary spousal support at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and fixed costs.

The respondent's motion for disclosure was adjourned.

The plaintiff, Car-Wal Garage Doors Inc., brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant, On Track Door Systems Canada Inc., from using the trade name "On Track" and the domain name "ontrackdoorsystems.ca".

The plaintiff alleged the defendant's actions constituted passing off, causing confusion and damaging goodwill, particularly after the expiry of a previous licence agreement.

The defendant cross-moved to strike the claim, arguing res judicata or abuse of process.

The court applied the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding passing off, a risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill and market share, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

A limited injunction was granted, restraining the defendant from using "On Track" in its name except for "On Track Door Systems Grey Bruce Inc." and from using the specified domain name.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a motion for summary judgment due to an expired limitation period, the parties could not agree on costs.

The successful defendants sought $30,044.19, while the plaintiff suggested $15,000.

The court considered the principle of proportionality and the timing of the summary judgment motion, ultimately fixing costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants at $20,000 all-inclusive.

Following a motion to vary child and spousal support where the applicant achieved mixed success, the respondent sought costs of up to $20,890.

The court noted that while the respondent made a reasonable offer to settle, she had previously resisted a reasonable request to terminate child support.

Given the divided success and the parties' conduct, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The applicant moved to vary a 2012 order to terminate child and spousal support.

The court denied the applicant's request to amend pleadings at trial to seek earlier child support termination dates.

Child support was terminated on consent effective May 2016, and the respondent was ordered to pay $5,350 for her share of retroactive post-secondary education expenses.

The court dismissed the motion to terminate spousal support, finding that despite the respondent's conjugal relationship and increased income, her compensatory entitlement from the 20-year marriage had not yet been exhausted.

The plaintiff purchased a sunroom installed by the defendant in 2001 and experienced severe problems with it during the first winter.

The plaintiff commenced an action for rescission of the contract in December 2010.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding that the cause of action was discovered by the end of the winter of 2001/2002, making the six-year limitation period under the 1990 Limitations Act applicable.

Even under the 2002 Limitations Act, the court found the action was out of time, as the plaintiff knew or ought to have known that a legal proceeding was appropriate by February 2007 at the latest.

The appellant husband appealed an order from the Superior Court of Justice (Family Court Branch) in which the presiding judge severed the husband's divorce claim and made substantive orders in favour of the wife, including orders regarding pension division and an extension of the limitation period under the Family Law Act.

The wife had not filed an answer and may have been in default.

The Court of Appeal found that while the court could impose terms to secure the wife's participation, it was not open to the court to grant substantive relief in favour of the wife that had not been sought.

The order was set aside and the matter was remitted to a different judge.

The appellant did not attend for argument of the appeal and advised the respondents' counsel that she would not be attending.

The appellant was self-represented, having filed a Notice of Intention to Act in person.

The appeal was dismissed as abandoned, and the respondents were awarded costs in the amount of $9,000, inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes.

The applicant was successful on a motion and sought costs.

The respondent agreed that the applicant was entitled to costs and that the requested amount was reasonable, despite disagreeing with the applicant's cost submissions.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the agreed-upon costs of $45,020.56.

The court addressed disputes regarding the interpretation and implementation of Minutes of Settlement in estate litigation between family members and an estate trustee during litigation.

Following earlier endorsements clarifying settlement terms, the judge directed the parties to submit competing draft orders reflecting the intended disposition.

The principal issues concerned the timing of a payment obligation tied to a $500,000 amount from an estate interest and whether provisions addressing the estate trustee’s role should appear in the final order.

Applying a “final offer selection” approach, the court concluded that the draft orders proposed by the estate trustee most accurately reflected the settlement and prior endorsements.

The court therefore signed and entered those orders.

The respondent mother requested an addendum to a costs order to stipulate that the $54,700 costs award is enforceable under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996.

The applicant father opposed the request, arguing that his recent bankruptcy filing extinguished the debt.

The court rejected the father's argument, noting that support debts are not extinguished by bankruptcy and that the costs order related to a trial where spousal and child support were key issues.

The court granted the request, ordering the costs to be treated as a support order enforceable under the Act.

Following a four‑day family law trial in which the respondent mother was successful on issues of spousal support, child support, medical benefits coverage, and compliance with a prior order, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful party sought full recovery of over $72,000 in legal fees and disbursements.

The court found that although the mother was clearly the successful party and the father had behaved unreasonably in some respects, the offer to settle had not been technically met or exceeded.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court awarded partial indemnity costs for the period prior to a change in counsel and substantial recovery thereafter.

The court fixed total costs at $54,700 payable within thirty days.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated after a 13-year marriage.

The mother, who was the primary caregiver and suffered from severe medical disabilities, sought ongoing spousal support, child support, and section 7 expenses.

The father argued he could not afford the support and disputed certain expenses.

The court found the mother entitled to indefinite spousal support on both compensatory and need bases, ordering the father to pay $1,891 monthly.

The court also ordered the father to pay ongoing child support, his share of section 7 expenses including cell phones and YMCA memberships, and outstanding arrears from a prior consent order.

The applicant brought a motion for retroactive and ongoing child support and spousal support following separation after a lengthy marriage with two children.

The court reviewed principles of spousal support entitlement, including compensatory and non‑compensatory bases, and considered whether income should be imputed to the applicant.

The court found the applicant was not intentionally underemployed and declined to impute additional income to her.

Using the respondent’s income of $58,023.54, the court ordered retroactive child support for the period following separation, ongoing guideline child support, and retroactive and ongoing spousal support calculated at the mid‑range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Payment of retroactive support was ordered from the respondent’s share of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.