M. Dale Parayeski

A manufacturing company sued a scrap metal dealer in conversion after stolen industrial dye blocks and related materials were sold to the dealer by a third party thief.

The court held that conversion is a tort of strict liability and that the dealer was liable for purchasing and reselling property belonging to the plaintiff, even if done in good faith.

Arguments that the plaintiff had been on notice of potential theft or contributorily negligent were rejected.

Due to incomplete records and uncertainty regarding the precise quantity of stolen goods, the court approximated the amount converted and assessed damages based primarily on replacement metal cost and associated fabrication expenses rather than scrap value.

Judgment was awarded for damages reflecting the value of converted dye blocks and related losses.

Following a trial concerning alleged loans made by a parent to his daughter and her spouse, the plaintiff succeeded against the co-defendant spouse for two of three loans.

The court had found the spouse jointly liable for the majority of the claimed debt.

On the subsequent costs ruling, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs after a Rule 49 offer to settle that produced a more favourable trial result.

While the court found the plaintiff largely successful and noted the defendant’s conduct had unnecessarily prolonged the trial, the claimed amounts were considered somewhat excessive.

The court fixed costs in the lump sum amount of $70,000 inclusive.

Following a family law trial, the court determined the appropriate costs award after considering the parties’ written submissions and offers to settle under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the wife achieved results equal to or better than her offer to settle and was therefore entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

However, the court reduced the amount claimed due to concerns about excessive clerk hourly rates, insufficient billing detail, and unnecessary trial time devoted to credibility attacks.

The court fixed the wife’s costs at $80,000 for fees plus $8,981.02 in disbursements.

Twenty‑five percent of the costs were deemed related to support issues for enforcement and bankruptcy protection purposes.

Following dismissal of a motion to continue an ex parte interim injunction, the successful defendant sought costs.

The plaintiff argued that costs should be denied or reduced due to alleged reprehensible pre‑litigation conduct by the defendant and that the claimed amount was excessive.

The court held that the limited and conflicting evidence regarding pre‑litigation conduct did not justify departing from the general rule that a successful party is entitled to costs.

Partial indemnity costs were appropriate because the plaintiff’s conduct in seeking the injunction was not sufficiently reprehensible to warrant substantial indemnity.

Costs were fixed at $20,397.92 and ordered payable within 60 days.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship with no access.

The child had been apprehended at birth and had significant developmental and medical needs, while evidence established that the mother had severe cognitive limitations and limited support resources.

Applying Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the society had established a prima facie case that the child was in need of protection.

The court further found that less intrusive alternatives were inadequate and that permanence was urgently required given the child’s needs.

The statutory presumption against access to Crown wards was not rebutted because there was insufficient evidence that access would be beneficial and meaningful to the child or would not impair adoption prospects.

The respondents brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of a grandmother’s application for access to her grandchildren under s. 21(1) of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The court considered the best interests of the children under s. 24 of the Act, including the nature of the historical relationship between the grandmother and the children, the present circumstances of the family, and the status quo after several years without contact.

Even accepting the applicant’s characterization of the prior relationship, the court found it to be an ordinary grandparent relationship and not one warranting court‑ordered access.

Given the intense conflict between the adults and the children’s stable and thriving circumstances, ordering access would place the children in the middle of ongoing hostility.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment dismissing the application.

A homeowner brought an action against a contractor arising from a kitchen renovation project involving multiple unclear written and unwritten agreements.

The plaintiff alleged numerous deficiencies including an uneven floor, improperly installed cabinets, lack of structural roof support after removal of ceiling joists, and ventilation deficiencies.

The court found that the contractor breached aspects of the contract and performed some work negligently, including failing to provide structural support compliant with the Building Code.

However, the plaintiff failed to prove the cost of rectifying most alleged deficiencies, which is required to establish damages absent rescission.

Judgment was granted only for the return of a $5,600 window deposit that was paid but for which no windows were supplied or installed.

The self-represented applicant sought child support from his parents to fund his university education.

The applicant had been attending university full-time since 2010 and financed his education through loans and part-time work.

The court found the applicant remained a child of the marriage under the Divorce Act and was entitled to support.

The court ordered the parents to pay two-thirds of the applicant's educational expenses proportionate to their incomes, including one year of retroactive support.

The plaintiff sought continuation of an ex parte interim injunction and a permanent injunction to prevent nearby blasting associated with residential construction, alleging vibrations would disrupt the alignment of satellite earth stations used for communications services.

The court applied the standard requiring a very strong probability of grave future harm before granting injunctive relief.

Expert evidence from the defendants indicated an extremely low probability of damage under the blasting plan, while the plaintiff’s evidence was largely speculative and lacked detailed technical analysis.

The court concluded the plaintiff failed to establish a strong probability of harm on the balance of probabilities.

The motion to continue the injunction was therefore dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion seeking removal of the plaintiffs’ law firm on the basis of an alleged conflict of interest arising from a lawyer who previously acted for some defendants sharing office space with the plaintiffs’ counsel and being described as “of counsel.” The moving parties argued that the physical proximity and prior involvement in related matters created a risk of confidential information being shared.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada test from MacDonald Estate v. Martin, the court considered whether a reasonably informed person would conclude that confidential information would be used.

The court found the evidence showed separate practices, systems, and files, and that the lawyer’s involvement in the present matter had ended well before the office‑sharing arrangement.

The motion to remove the plaintiffs’ counsel was therefore dismissed.

The appellant sought to adjourn its motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board.

The appellant discovered that a witness who testified at the Board hearing had previously made a presentation to Board members, prompting the appellant to commence an application for judicial review regarding procedural fairness.

The court granted the adjournment, noting that it would be an inefficient use of court resources to hear the leave to appeal motion when the underlying decision could potentially be declared a nullity through the judicial review application.

Following a trial decision, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought $74,612.14 all-inclusive, relying in part on an offer to settle that triggered substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

One defendant conceded the entitlement to substantial indemnity costs from that date, while another provided no submissions on costs and a corporate defendant did not participate in the trial.

The court considered the conduct of the participating defendants, including late concessions that prolonged the trial and required unnecessary witnesses.

Balancing the relevant considerations, the court fixed the plaintiff’s costs at $65,000 all-inclusive against the individual defendants.

Following a nine-day family law trial, the court determined the appropriate costs award between the parties.

Although both parties had exchanged settlement offers, neither was sufficiently advantageous to trigger substantial indemnity costs under the applicable principles.

The court found that the respondent father was significantly more successful on the primary issues at trial and that the trial was unnecessarily prolonged due to the applicant mother's unwillingness to make reasonable concessions.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the mother to pay the father's costs in the fixed amount of $12,000.

The court directed that the costs be applied to reduce the equalization payment owed by the father rather than to his support obligations in order to avoid negative impacts on the children.

The plaintiff sought recovery of remediation costs paid to repair structural defects in a newly constructed home after the builder failed to fulfill warranty obligations.

The corporate builder and its principals had executed indemnification agreements requiring reimbursement of losses arising from warranty claims.

The defendants argued the claim was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 and that the indemnity cap for the individual defendants was $20,000 rather than $200,000.

The court held that limitation periods for indemnity claims run from the date the indemnifier actually pays out losses, not from when the underlying defect arises.

The action was therefore timely because the payments occurred in 2006 within two years of the claim issued in 2007.

The court further held the contract imposed an aggregate $200,000 indemnity cap for the individual defendants, not a per‑home limit.

A teenage plaintiff became paraplegic after falling from a tree in a municipal park.

The plaintiffs alleged the municipality breached its duties under the Occupier’s Liability Act by failing to monitor the park, trim or remove the tree, or prohibit tree climbing.

The court held that the municipality’s inspection and maintenance practices were reasonable and that the risk of injury from climbing the tree was not reasonably foreseeable given the absence of prior complaints or incidents.

The court rejected arguments that the municipality should have altered or removed the tree or enacted prohibitions on climbing.

The action was dismissed, although the court stated that if liability had been established the plaintiff’s contributory negligence would have been assessed at 67 percent.

Supplementary reasons were issued to correct and clarify aspects of an earlier family law decision released March 14, 2013.

The court amended two portions of the earlier judgment by correcting a monetary figure and a date referenced in the reasons.

The court also clarified parenting arrangements by ordering that the mother have access to the children of the marriage for a two-week period during summer school vacations.

These supplementary reasons were provided following counsel’s appearance to address the necessary corrections and clarifications.

The plaintiff mortgagee sought summary judgment against the defendant mortgagors following multiple defaults on a mortgage and fire insurance policy.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff's acceptance of a partial payment 'without prejudice' remade the agreement, requiring the plaintiff to restart the collection process, and counterclaimed that the plaintiff dissuaded a donor from paying off the mortgage.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no direct evidence to support the counterclaim and concluding that the partial payment was merely on account, not a remaking of the agreement.

The court also rejected the argument that the action was barred by section 42(1) of the Mortgages Act.

In supplementary reasons following a family law proceeding, the court addressed the parties’ entitlement to obtain a divorce.

After the earlier determination of the substantive issues between the parties, the court confirmed that either party could proceed to obtain a divorce upon filing the usual materials with the court.

The decision clarifies that no further judicial determination was required for the divorce itself once the necessary documentation was submitted.

The supplementary reasons therefore permit both parties to move forward with the formal divorce process.

Following a family law trial after partial settlement of issues, the court determined outstanding disputes regarding parenting arrangements, extraordinary expenses, life insurance, division of chattels, and disposition of the matrimonial home.

Sole custody of the child remained with the mother by agreement, while the court structured detailed access provisions favouring expanded parenting time for the father.

The court ordered extraordinary expenses to be shared 60/40, required both parents to maintain life insurance securing child support obligations, and directed the parties to use a parenting coordinator before returning to court over access disputes.

Regarding property, the court permitted the mother to purchase the father’s interest in the matrimonial home at fair market value determined through appraisal evidence, subject to adjustments for appreciation and closing costs.

Chattels were ordered to be physically divided using a list‑selection method proposed by the father.

The parties separated after a 12-year marriage with four children.

The mother sought sole custody, limited access for the father, and significant equalization and support payments.

The court ordered joint custody, finding the mother had attempted to minimize the father's relationship with the children.

The court expanded the father's access and imputed an annual income of $40,000 to the mother, a qualified teacher, due to intentional underemployment.

The father was ordered to pay child support, a time-limited spousal support of $250 per month, and an equalization payment of $63,419.27, subject to deductions for credits and prior costs.