Meghan Jordan Pauline De Snoo

The applicant mother brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' two children to Germany.

The respondent father had travelled with the children to Ontario under the guise of a vacation and subsequently claimed refugee status, alleging the children were at risk of abuse from the mother.

The court found that the children were habitually resident in Germany and were wrongfully retained in Ontario.

The court rejected the father's argument that returning the children would expose them to a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation under Article 13(b) of the Convention, noting that the German authorities had previously investigated and dismissed his allegations.

The court ordered the immediate return of the children to Germany and awarded the mother $83,000 in costs on a full indemnity basis due to the father's bad faith conduct.

This is a costs decision following a successful appeal by the mother in a family law matter involving the Hague Convention and refugee status.

The mother's appeal overturned the application judge's decision to return the child to the country of origin after Canada granted the child refugee status.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the mother as the wholly successful party, fixing costs at $50,000 for the application and $30,000 for the appeal, totalling $80,000, while reversing the application judge's award of $75,000 to the father.

A wrongfully retained child was ordered returned to her country of origin after Canada granted her refugee status.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in failing to apply the rebuttable presumption against the return of a refugee child and in dismissing the child's objection to return.

The court held that when a child has been recognized as a Convention refugee by the Immigration and Refugee Board, a rebuttable presumption arises that there is a risk of persecution on return.

The application judge improperly questioned the refugee determination process and reweighed evidence without oral testimony or cross-examination.

Additionally, the child's clear and repeated objection to return, based on fear of violence by the father, was not given proper weight.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court for determination of parenting and decision-making authority under section 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The applicant father brought a Hague Convention application for the return of the 12-year-old child to the Bahamas.

The respondent mother conceded the removal was wrongful but opposed the return based on exceptions under Articles 13(b), 13(2), and 20, alleging a history of domestic violence and a lack of state protection in the Bahamas.

During the proceedings, the mother and child were granted refugee status in Canada, creating a rebuttable presumption of risk.

The court found the father successfully rebutted the presumption, noting the Bahamas has adequate laws and agencies to protect victims of domestic violence.

The court also declined to exercise its discretion to refuse return based on the child's objections, finding the child had been influenced by the mother.

The application was granted and the child was ordered returned to the Bahamas.

In Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings, LoyaltyOne, Co. and its Monitor sought a declaration that a Tax Matters Agreement (TMA) was not binding or was void as a transfer at undervalue (TUV), and sought to disclaim the TMA to secure a $96 million tax refund.

Bread Financial Holdings, Inc. (formerly ADS) cross-moved to set aside the disclaimer, asserting its entitlement to the refund under the TMA.

The court ruled that LoyaltyOne was bound by the TMA, the TMA was not void as a TUV, and the disclaimer was not approved.

The court found it premature to determine the specific nature of Bread's rights to the refund.

The plaintiff general contractor sued the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) and other owners for approximately $193 million in damages arising from the delayed construction of the Steeles West Subway Station.

The project was delayed by 1,047 days due to incomplete designs, utility issues, and numerous changes directed by the TTC.

The court found the TTC responsible for the delay and awarded the plaintiff damages for extended contract performance, acceleration costs, underfunded change directives, and unpaid notices of intent to claim.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's attempt to flow through subcontractor claims where liquidating agreements had extinguished the plaintiff's liability.

The TTC's counterclaim for liquidated damages was dismissed as a penalty.

The plaintiff was granted a construction lien for $57,697,627.06.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Akazaki J. dated January 2, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $5,000.

The court issued supplementary reasons regarding costs for an interim injunction motion.

The defendants sought to revisit the costs award, arguing that an offer to settle the motion should attract costs consequences under Rule 49.

The court found that the defendants' offer was insufficient as it did not fully address the plaintiff's concerns, particularly regarding non-solicitation, and that the plaintiff had obtained what it sought.

The court dismissed the defendants' request to revisit the costs, affirming the original costs award to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, an insurance brokerage, brought a motion for interim injunctive relief to prevent former employees and rival brokerages from using confidential client information and soliciting clients.

The individual defendants resigned en masse and allegedly used client lists from the plaintiff.

The defendants argued an injunction was unnecessary due to an undertaking not to use confidential information.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm due to the alienation of confidential information, and that the balance of inconvenience favored the plaintiff.

An interim injunction was granted prohibiting the defendants from possessing, disclosing, using (including for solicitation), altering, destroying, copying, removing, or transferring the plaintiff's confidential information, including information acquired mentally.

A separate non-solicitation order was not granted, as the confidential information injunction was deemed sufficient.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.