McSweeney

The appellant father appealed a trial decision granting sole custody of the parties' child to the respondent mother and ordering him to pay child support based on an imputed income of $420,000.

The mother cross-appealed, seeking to impute an even higher income to the father.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's best interests analysis for sole custody.

The court also upheld the imputation of income, noting the father's failure to provide adequate financial disclosure regarding his solely-owned business and the significant discrepancy between his reported income and his lifestyle and expenditures.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's two construction defect actions for delay.

The actions were commenced in 2011 and 2012 but had not progressed to discoveries.

The plaintiff's former counsel claimed a 'mental block' prevented him from advancing the files, and the plaintiff's principal claimed ignorance of the delay.

The court found the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, noting the plaintiff's principal failed to monitor the litigation.

The court also found actual prejudice to the defendants, including the death of a key witness.

The motions were granted and the actions dismissed.

The applicant Municipality sought a declaration of ownership over a strip of beach on Georgian Bay where the respondent had built a deck.

The respondent argued the beach was owned by the Provincial Crown.

The court analyzed the historical conveyances, including the original 1899 Crown Patent and a 1969 Reference Plan, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Walker.

The court found no express reservation of the beach in the Crown Patent or subsequent conveyances, concluding that the waterfront lots extended to the water's edge.

Consequently, the Municipality, having acquired the adjacent road, also owned the beach.

The respondent was found to be trespassing and ordered to remove the deck.

Following a trial in a commercial lease dispute where the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed and the defendant landlord's counterclaim was allowed, the court determined the issue of costs.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs based on the terms of the commercial lease.

The court found that the lease established a contractual entitlement to recovery of legal costs on a solicitor-client scale.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments to limit costs to the Small Claims Court scale, noting the plaintiffs chose to commence a Superior Court action.

Costs were fixed at $65,000.00 on a substantial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff tenants brought an action against their former landlord for breach of contract and wrongful distress after the landlord issued a Notice of Distress for unpaid rent.

The tenants claimed that a maintenance employee of the landlord had signed a 'letter of forgiveness' and a short-form lease that eliminated their past debts.

The court found that the employee had no actual or apparent authority to bind the landlord, and the landlord's subsequent administrative actions did not constitute acceptance of the unsigned lease.

The court held that the landlord was entitled to distrain the tenants' goods due to significant rent arrears, and the distress was not excessive.

The tenants' action was dismissed, and the landlord's counterclaim for unpaid rent and other charges was allowed.

The applicant sought to legally end his second and third marriages.

He entered into his second marriage while still married to his first wife, making the second marriage void ab initio.

He later divorced his first wife and entered into a third marriage.

The court found the third marriage was valid because the first marriage had been dissolved and the second marriage never legally existed.

The court granted a divorce for the third marriage but adjourned the annulment application for the second marriage to ensure proper service on the second wife.

The appellant parents appealed a trial decision making their two children Crown wards without access.

The parents had previously been convicted of manslaughter in the death of their middle child due to malnutrition.

On appeal, the parents argued the trial judge made numerous errors, including finding the youngest child in need of protection, excluding the reasons for sentence from their criminal trial, and terminating access.

They also sought to introduce fresh evidence and argued they received ineffective assistance from their trial counsel.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings or application of the law.

The court also held that the fresh evidence would not have changed the outcome and that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim was both moot and unfounded.

The applicant, a municipal councillor charged with assaulting the deputy mayor, sought to vary his bail conditions to permit him to attend town council meetings.

His original bail conditions included a no-contact order with the victim and witnesses, and prohibited him from attending the town hall.

The applicant argued that his inability to attend meetings for three successive months would result in the loss of his council seat under the Municipal Act.

The court found that his unrestricted attendance posed an unacceptable risk to the victim and witnesses.

However, to prevent the automatic loss of his seat, the court granted a limited variation allowing him to attend one specific meeting for the sole purpose of registering his attendance, provided he is accompanied by a police officer at his own expense.

Following a 20-year relationship, the applicant wife sought spousal support, while the respondent husband, who had custody of their three children, sought spousal support and section 7 expenses.

The court found the respondent intentionally unemployed and imputed his income at $115,000.

The applicant was awarded compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support due to her 11-year absence from the workforce to care for the children.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $1,150 per month in ongoing spousal support, which included a $200 monthly deduction representing the applicant's contribution to the children's section 7 sports and post-secondary expenses.

The respondent's claims for spousal support and debt contribution were dismissed.

The defendants and third parties brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, who resides in Connecticut and has no assets in Ontario.

The plaintiff, who was rendered paraplegic in a snowmobile accident, sought $15 million in damages.

The court found the threshold for security for costs was met and the plaintiff failed to show that an order would be unjust.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post $60,000 in security for costs, payable in three stages, taking into account his costs insurance policy and the need to avoid preventing him from advancing his litigation.

The applicant and respondent separated in 2012 and have two children.

The applicant sought ongoing child support and section 7 expenses.

The respondent, a skilled carpenter, lost his job in 2015 and claimed to be unable to work due to mental health issues, but failed to provide court-ordered medical or financial disclosure.

The court applied the framework from Drygala v. Pauli and imputed an annual income of $60,000 to the respondent, finding he was capable of earning a full-time carpenter's salary.

The court ordered the respondent to pay table child support and his proportionate share of section 7 expenses based on the imputed income, and awarded costs to the applicant.

The appellant developer appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding it breached its duty of fair dealing by refusing to reduce the final sale price for the respondent's commercial condominium units, despite doing so for other purchasers.

The appellant argued the trial judge introduced a novel theory of liability (duty of honest performance under Bhasin v. Hrynew) that was not expressly pleaded, depriving it of the right to know the case to meet.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the self-represented respondent had clearly pleaded unfair treatment, the appellant knew the case it had to meet, and the trial judge correctly applied the law on the duty of honest performance.

In an uncontested trial, the applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The respondent father failed to appear despite having notice.

The court granted the applicant sole custody with access at her discretion.

Income was imputed to the respondent at $70,000 based on his past earnings as a millwright, and he was ordered to pay table child support and proportionate section 7 expenses retroactive to the date of separation.

The applicant was also granted exclusive possession of the home and its contents, though her request to transfer the respondent's potential interest in the home to secure support was denied due to lack of evidence regarding his interest.

The plaintiff sued her former manager for defamation after he provided a negative employment reference to a prospective employer, resulting in a revoked job offer.

The court found that while the manager's statements were defamatory, they were made on an occasion of qualified privilege.

The plaintiff failed to prove that the manager was motivated by malice.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's alternative tort claims as they were based on the same facts as the defamation claim.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking permission to travel to Egypt with the parties' nine-year-old son for a two-week vacation.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, citing the child's complex special needs, the Government of Canada's travel advisory for Egypt, and concerns that the father posed a flight risk.

The court applied a cost/benefit analysis to determine the child's best interests.

While acknowledging the benefit of the child meeting his paternal grandparents, the court dismissed the motion, finding that the risks associated with the child's impulsive behaviours, the unfamiliar environment, and the unpredictable security situation in Egypt outweighed the benefits.