Mary Anne Cummings

The applicant father brought a contempt motion in a family law proceeding alleging multiple breaches of prior court orders by the respondent mother.

The court had previously found the respondent in contempt for failing to produce counselling records, failing to comply with a parenting schedule requiring attendance at children’s baseball activities, and failing to transfer ownership of equipment as ordered.

At sentencing, the court determined that some contempt had been belatedly purged while other breaches remained incapable of remedy.

The court imposed financial penalties totalling $800 for the contempts and awarded substantial full recovery costs to the applicant due to the respondent’s bad faith delay and repeated failure to comply with disclosure obligations.

Additional costs were ordered against the respondent and partially against her counsel for adjournments and procedural delays.

Following a commercial lease trial between a tenant applicant and a landlord respondent, the court was required to determine the appropriate costs award.

The tenant sought $185,421.51 in post‑trial costs arising from extensive factual analysis required due to the landlord’s inadequate maintenance records and litigation conduct.

The court held that while the tenant had beaten settlement offers and was largely successful, the circumstances did not justify substantial indemnity costs.

Considering the parties’ conduct, the scale of the litigation, and the principles in Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed costs on an enhanced partial indemnity basis.

Following a prior partial judgment concerning interpretation of a commercial lease, the court addressed the landlord’s accounting for additional rent allegedly representing property management and maintenance expenses.

The lease did not permit standardized management or administrative fees, and the landlord bore the onus of proving reasonable and proper expenses actually incurred.

The court found the landlord’s records unreliable and insufficient, noting undated documents, inconsistent time sheets, duplicated entries, and indications that records were retrospectively created.

Because the landlord failed to demonstrate that the claimed work was performed or that the charges reflected commercially reasonable costs, most management-related claims were disallowed.

The court concluded the tenant had overpaid additional rent over four years and ordered a refund of $128,712.31, with costs submissions to follow.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an interim variation of a prior custody and access order following an incident where the respondent became severely intoxicated while caring for the parties’ young children, leaving them unsupervised and causing police involvement.

The court found that the seriousness of the incident constituted a material change in circumstances affecting the best interests of the children under s. 29 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

While rejecting the applicant’s request to restrict the respondent to day-only supervised access by a professional supervisor, the court ordered a temporary variation requiring supervised access with the respondent’s parents and continued alcohol monitoring through a SCRAM bracelet.

The court imposed a regime allowing limited overnight access and ordered that any monitored alcohol consumption would immediately suspend access.

The order was subject to review after six months.

The respondent employees were hired by the corporation to provide services at a gold mine in West Africa.

The corporation failed and was unable to pay salaries, vacation pay, and expenses.

The employees sued the directors under s. 131(1) of the Ontario Business Corporations Act for these amounts.

The motion judge granted summary judgment, finding the directors liable for the unpaid expenses.

The directors appealed, arguing that expenses do not constitute wages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under s. 131(1), expenses incurred by an employee in the course of providing services constitute a debt of the corporation for which its directors are liable, up to the statutory limit.

The applicant union sought disclosure of information regarding employees outside the bargaining unit to assist in negotiating a pay equity plan, as there were no male comparators within the unit.

The respondent employer refused to provide compensation schedules and job descriptions, arguing they were not yet relevant, and refused to provide names citing confidentiality.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal held that the employer must disclose job titles, gender composition, compensation schedules, and existing job descriptions for all positions outside the bargaining unit to enable informed and rational bargaining.

The Tribunal declined to order the disclosure of employee names at this preliminary stage.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The Board had to determine whether five disputed individuals were employees in the bargaining unit on the date of application.

The Board reconsidered a previous ruling and allowed the respondent to make unrestricted submissions regarding the list of employees.

Applying the test from E & E Seegmiller, the Board examined the work performed by each individual on the application date.

The Board concluded that one individual was performing carpentry work and was included in the unit, while the other four were not.

Finding that the applicant had the requisite membership support, the Board issued certificates to the applicant.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a unit of carpenters employed by the respondent.

The intervener trade union sought to participate, arguing it already represented the employees under existing collective agreements or, alternatively, had membership evidence for at least one affected employee.

The Board found the existing agreements did not cover carpenters but granted the intervener status based on membership evidence filed at the hearing.

The Board also held the respondent could not resile from a prior written agreement with the applicant regarding the list of employees in the bargaining unit, though the intervener remained free to challenge the list.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of painters and drywall tapers employed by the respondent.

The parties disputed the employment status of two individuals, whom the respondent claimed were independent contractors, and the inclusion of three others based on the work they performed.

The Board applied the fourfold and organizational tests to find the two individuals were employees.

The Board also found the other three individuals were properly included in the bargaining unit as they spent a majority of their time doing bargaining unit work on the application date.

The Board announced it would no longer use a 'representative period' to determine bargaining unit inclusion in the construction industry, restricting the inquiry to the application date.

As the union had less than forty-five percent membership support in the resulting unit, the application was dismissed.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to provide a physical copy of the Master Plan detailing welfare benefits under the collective agreement.

The employer argued that providing access to the document at its head office and answering questions by phone was sufficient.

The Board held that the refusal to provide a copy interfered with the union's ability to represent its members and fulfill its duty of fair representation under section 68.

The Board also declined to defer the matter to arbitration, noting that the complaint raised a novel issue regarding statutory rights under section 64.

The employer was directed to provide the union with a copy of the Master Plan.

Five female office employees filed a complaint alleging sex discrimination after their employer, F.W. Woolworth Ltd., froze their wages while granting increases to other staff, including male warehouse workers.

The employer argued the freeze was based on an informal wage survey showing the complainants were paid above market rates for their positions.

The Board of Inquiry applied the Supreme Court's framework for adverse effect discrimination and found that while the complainants were treated differently, there was no evidence linking the wage freeze to their sex.

The complaint was dismissed as the complainants failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.