Mary Jo M. Nolan

The parties separated after an incident of domestic violence resulting in the applicant father's conviction for assault.

At trial, the parties settled most issues via Minutes of Settlement, leaving the location for child exchanges and decision-making authority for education to be determined.

The court ordered exchanges to occur at the child's daycare and granted the respondent mother final decision-making authority over education.

Furthermore, the court exercised its parens patriae jurisdiction to override a mandatory mediation/arbitration clause in the Minutes of Settlement, finding it contrary to the child's best interests given the history of domestic violence and the mother's fear of the father.

A separated couple disputed two remaining parenting issues concerning their young child: the location for parenting exchanges and which parent should make decisions about the child’s education.

The court found that exchanges should occur at the child’s daycare, where the child was comfortable and settled.

Given the parties’ inability to communicate, the mother was granted final decision‑making authority regarding the child’s schooling within the local area after consultation with the father.

The court also scrutinized settlement terms requiring mandatory mediation and arbitration for future disputes, concluding that strict enforcement could undermine the best interests of the child where domestic violence and power imbalance concerns existed.

The court modified the dispute‑resolution provisions to permit mediation, arbitration, or court proceedings where appropriate.

Two applications were brought regarding the estate of the deceased.

One beneficiary sought to remove all three current executors and appoint an independent trustee, citing irreconcilable differences and hostility.

Two of the executors brought a cross-application to remove the third executor, who was operating the estate's main asset (a family farm) and had an interest in purchasing it.

The court found that the third executor had a conflict of interest and was primarily responsible for creating a climate of distrust that impeded the estate's administration.

The court removed the third executor and allowed the other two to continue as sole executors, dismissing the application to remove all three.

Following a jury trial in a personal injury action, the court addressed a post‑trial issue concerning the deductibility of disability insurance benefits received by the plaintiff.

The court determined that the jury had already effectively accounted for the benefits in its award and noted that the insurance had been privately purchased by the self‑employed plaintiff rather than provided through employment.

As a result, the plaintiffs were deemed successful and entitled to costs.

Upon reviewing the plaintiffs’ Bill of Costs, the court found the claimed hours excessive and reduced the recoverable legal fees while allowing disbursements and HST.

Costs were awarded in a reduced amount.

The applicant mother brought a motion for summary judgment in the Superior Court of Justice seeking to vary child support and custody orders previously made in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The respondent father did not appear.

The court dismissed the motion and the underlying application, holding that the Superior Court lacks jurisdiction to vary a final order made by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The applicant was directed to seek relief in the provincial court.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their claims for the return of funds advanced to the respondent Society.

The trial judge had found the funds were donations, not loans.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge made multiple errors of law and fact, including failing to apply the law of spoliation regarding missing corporate records, improperly admitting late expert handwriting evidence without an adjournment, refusing to hold a voir dire for reply evidence, and failing to act as a gatekeeper for opinion evidence.