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 moving party sought leave to appeal an order directing the Children's Aid Society to conduct an assessment under section 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, noting that while the parties agreed the order was a mistake, such an error should be corrected on a motion in the court below under Rule 25(19)(b) of the Family Law Rules.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The plaintiff, Tracey Lynn Kirstine, sought costs after successfully obtaining an interlocutory injunction.

The defendants argued that costs should be reserved to the trial judge or that their offers to settle should be considered.

The court, applying Rule 57.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, determined that an immediate costs award was appropriate, particularly given the defendants' breach of a prior order.

The court awarded the plaintiff $65,000 in all-inclusive costs, with 75% payable jointly and severally by Neil Kirstine and Jeremy Ellis, and the remaining balance split equally and severally among Tone Valeriote, Christine Brandt, and Donna Sparks.

The plaintiff and defendants were involved in a real estate partnership that was terminated.

The plaintiff obtained an interim interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from certain actions, including using the partnership's name and social media.

The plaintiff brought a motion to continue the injunction and for a non-solicitation order.

The court found that the defendants had breached their partnership duties and failed to comply with the interim order.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court granted the motion to continue the injunction and ordered non-solicitation.

Following a trial on child and spousal support, the respondent sought to re-argue the applicant's entitlement to spousal support.

The court dismissed this as an abuse of process, finding no evidentiary basis to infer post-separation income increases.

On the issue of costs, the court found that the respondent conducted the eight-year litigation in bad faith by failing to disclose relevant documents, stonewalling the income valuation process, and habitually breaching court orders.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $193,000 on a full recovery basis under Family Law Rule 24(8).

The plaintiff and defendants were partners in a real estate business.

Following the termination of the partnership, the plaintiff brought an application for an injunction, alleging that the defendants breached their duties as partners by locking her out of accounts and making misleading social media posts about the business.

The court granted an interim injunction pending an adjournment for cross-examinations, ordering the defendants to cease using the partnership name and to post an agreed message concerning the dissolution.

The applicant and respondent separated in 2012.

The central issue at trial was determining the respondent's income for child and spousal support purposes from 2017 onwards, given his self-employment as a farmer.

The court accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the respondent's income should be adjusted to reflect actual depreciation of farm equipment rather than the Capital Cost Allowance permitted for tax purposes.

The court also imputed income for personal benefits derived from the farming operation, including rent-free housing, vehicle use, and farm produce.

The court ordered support to be calculated based on these adjusted income figures, averaging the income for future years due to the fluctuating nature of farm income.

Following a motion for temporary spousal support, both parties sought costs.

The court determined that the applicant was the successful party, as the motion primarily concerned the quantum of support rather than entitlement, and the final order was closer to the applicant's offer to settle.

The applicant was awarded costs fixed at $4,149.36 on a partial recovery basis.

The parties sought costs following motions primarily concerning financial disclosure and an accounting of children's education funds.

The court noted the long history of the hard-fought case and the difficulty in evaluating success, as both parties took unreasonable positions on certain issues.

The court reserved the costs of the respondent's disclosure motion to the trial judge, who would be best positioned to assess its necessity.

However, the court awarded the applicant modest costs of $750 for his successful cross-motion to obtain an accounting of the education funds.

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 respondent, Laura McCombe, brought a motion for disclosure, and the applicant, David McCombe, brought a cross-motion for disclosure and suspension of spousal support.

The motions arose from a previous disclosure order and an underlying motion to change spousal and child support.

The court addressed the ongoing disclosure disputes, emphasizing the need for "critically necessary" information to determine income, particularly for the self-employed applicant.

The court dismissed the applicant's request to suspend spousal support due to outstanding disclosure.

It ordered a structured process for the applicant to provide specific "critically necessary" financial documents and an explanation for an unconventional property purchase.

The respondent was ordered to provide a proper accounting of educational trust funds.

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.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for damages arising from construction on an adjacent property and a failed retaining wall, or alternatively, to transfer the action to Small Claims Court.

The plaintiffs claimed damages for interference with their home's use and enjoyment, including punitive and aggravated damages.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, particularly concerning punitive damages and the complex nature of the crossclaims.

The court emphasized that partial summary judgment is a "rare procedure" and that the motion did not meet the objectives of proportionality, timeliness, and affordability as outlined in *Hryniak* and *Butera*.

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.