Meredith J. Donohue

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts involving sexual offences against family members.

One offence involved repeated sexual assaults against the accused’s son over a six‑year period when the child was between the ages of 10 and 16.

The second offence involved sexual exploitation of the accused’s granddaughter when she was approximately 12 years old.

The court considered aggravating factors including trans‑generational abuse, breach of trust, multiple victims, and the accused’s prior criminal record, alongside mitigating factors such as advanced age, poor health, and the guilty plea.

Applying the principles of denunciation and general deterrence under the Criminal Code, the court imposed a custodial sentence.

Following a 14‑year marriage and separation, the parties disputed custody, access, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the father had been the primary caregiver since separation and that the child was thriving in his care.

Concerns were raised about the mother’s past mental health incidents, instability in housing and employment, and prior difficulties cooperating with supervised access arrangements.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court awarded sole custody to the father with limited but unsupervised access to the mother, together with phone and Skype contact.

The court imputed income to both parties and ordered spousal support at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, with a modest equalization payment payable by the respondent.

A family law trial addressing child support, section 7 extraordinary expenses, property valuation, and life insurance security following a contentious separation.

The applicant sought to impute income to the respondent after termination of employment and sought recovery of substantial extracurricular expenses for the children.

The court declined to impute income, finding the respondent was not intentionally underemployed and that his actual income history reflected his earning capacity.

The court limited extraordinary extracurricular expenses to a reasonable amount consistent with the family’s pre‑separation spending pattern and ordered proportional sharing, including orthodontic expenses.

The court also valued disputed household contents, tools, vehicles, and boats for equalization purposes and ordered the respondent to maintain life insurance securing child support obligations.

The insured sought reimbursement of defence costs incurred in responding to Human Rights Tribunal proceedings, arguing that information disclosed in a policy renewal application constituted notice of a claim under a “claims made and reported” liability policy.

The court held that the disclosure merely referenced the retention of outside counsel and did not objectively communicate a claim or potential claim to the insurer within the policy period.

The insurer had no duty to inquire further upon receiving the renewal application, as the obligation to provide notice rested on the insured.

The late notice deprived the insurer of opportunities to investigate, control the defence, and attempt early resolution, constituting actual prejudice.

Relief from forfeiture under s. 129 of the Insurance Act was unavailable because timely notice is a condition precedent to coverage under claims-made-and-reported policies.

The offender was sentenced following convictions on two counts of sexual assault committed against a co-resident in a rooming house.

The assaults involved forced vaginal intercourse on two occasions in the early morning hours and caused ongoing psychological harm to the victim, including depression and post‑traumatic stress symptoms.

The court considered aggravating factors including the repeated assaults, the victim’s vulnerability in her own residence, and the continuing emotional trauma, alongside mitigating factors such as the offender’s youth, family responsibilities, and employment.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, the court imposed a custodial sentence exceeding two years to permit a probation order with rehabilitative conditions.

Ancillary orders included DNA sampling, long‑term sex offender registration, and a weapons prohibition.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, and unlawful confinement arising from an incident involving the complainant.

At trial the complainant testified she could not recall the events but affirmed that her preliminary inquiry testimony was truthful.

The Crown sought to rely on the preliminary inquiry transcript after a voir dire establishing necessity and reliability.

The court found the complainant’s trial memory loss was deliberate and motivated by a desire to reconcile with the accused, and accepted the preliminary inquiry evidence as reliable.

The accused was convicted of assault and sexual assault but acquitted of unlawful confinement due to reasonable doubt on whether the complainant’s liberty had been restrained.

Following separation and divorce proceedings, the court adjudicated unresolved issues concerning equalization-related debt, reimbursement of post‑separation house expenses, damage to matrimonial property, and entitlement to spousal support.

The applicant alleged a loan from her father that should be recognized as a debt on the valuation date, sought reimbursement of mortgage and tax payments made after separation, and claimed long‑term spousal support based on alleged disability.

The court accepted evidence that a bona fide loan of $77,902 existed at separation but rejected the claim for reimbursement of house expenses.

It found the respondent responsible for damage to a kitchen countertop occurring after separation.

The court determined the medical evidence did not establish ongoing disability and ordered time‑limited spousal support only to facilitate transition to self‑sufficiency.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to amend its Statement of Defence to plead a limitation defence and sought summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim as statute‑barred.

The dispute concerned commission allegedly owed to the plaintiff arising from a sale to a foreign government ministry, where the defendant had imposed a revised commission formula in 2006.

The court applied the discoverability principle under s. 4 of the Limitations Act and held that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the alleged loss by December 2006, or at the latest by correspondence in August and September 2007 confirming the defendant’s position.

Because the action was commenced in September 2009, more than two years after discoverability, the claim was statute‑barred.

Leave to amend the defence was granted and summary judgment was granted dismissing the claim.

The defendants brought a motion under s. 47(1) of the Construction Lien Act to discharge the plaintiff’s construction lien and certificate of action and to dismiss the action.

The court held that the lien against the property owner was invalid because the plaintiff failed to provide the written notice required under s. 19(1) of the Act.

The court further found, on the evidentiary record, that the amount already paid exceeded the value of the work actually performed under the contracts.

Applying the summary judgment principles in the Rules of Civil Procedure and the guidance in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court concluded a trial was unnecessary.

The lien and certificate of action were discharged and the action dismissed as against the relevant defendants.

Following the breakdown of a long-term marriage, the court addressed equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The respondent alleged reckless depletion of family assets through extensive credit-card financed online stock trading and sought an unequal division under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The court held that although the trading was imprudent and resulted in significant debt, it did not meet the high threshold of “unconscionability” required to depart from equalization.

The court rejected a claimed $600,000 loan from a family friend as an unenforceable and undocumented alleged debt.

Retroactive and ongoing spousal support were awarded based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines given the respondent’s economic disadvantage following a traditional and controlling marriage.

The moving party sought to reduce interim child and spousal support after losing his employment and requested elimination or set-off of arrears.

The responding party sought to impute substantial income to the payor and requested large prospective lump sum awards for child and spousal support due to concerns about potential bankruptcy and loss of future support.

The court held that the evidentiary record did not justify imputing high income or ordering lump sum support at the interim stage, emphasizing that such orders require strong evidence and consideration of the payor’s future financial viability.

Finding a material change in circumstances due to the loss of employment, the court varied the interim order by suspending spousal support and reducing child support to reflect current income.

The court also ordered payment of a tax liability previously agreed to by the parties from the payor’s RRSP holdings.

The moving party sought to set aside default judgments entered against him in two civil actions arising from alleged investment misrepresentations and breaches of fiduciary duty.

The court applied the test under Rule 19.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requiring prompt motion, a reasonable explanation for the default, and a defence on the merits with an air of reality.

While the first two requirements were conceded, the court found the moving party failed to demonstrate a valid defence.

The affidavit evidence did not deny key allegations of reliance, misrepresentations, or investment advice, and contained unsupported assertions regarding investor sophistication and contributory negligence.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and refused to set aside the default judgments.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment ordering child and spousal support and equalization, and to set aside an earlier order striking his pleadings and freezing his bank accounts.

He also sought to vary custody of the parties’ child.

Applying the test for setting aside default judgment, the court held the applicant failed to act promptly after becoming aware of the judgment, failed to provide a plausible explanation for the default, and failed to establish an arguable case on the merits.

The court found evidence that the applicant knew of the earlier orders yet delayed several years before bringing the motion.

The motion was dismissed, and the respondent’s cross‑motion for payment of support arrears and costs from funds paid into court was granted.

Following competing family law motions for spousal support and child support, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving party seeking spousal support was unsuccessful, while the opposing party succeeded on a cross-motion for child support.

Applying s. 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, the court held that the successful party was presumptively entitled to costs.

After reviewing counsel’s time and the steps taken in the proceeding, the court found the claimed time reasonable and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside a separation agreement on the basis of alleged bullying by opposing counsel and lack of opportunity to obtain independent legal advice or translation.

The court reviewed affidavit evidence regarding the negotiation and execution of the agreement and found no evidence of coercion or unfairness.

The court rejected the claim that the moving party had not been advised to seek legal advice and preferred evidence indicating she had consulted a lawyer.

The agreement was found to be clear and to fairly allocate responsibility for the matrimonial home and related debts.

The court held the separation agreement valid and enforceable and ordered the execution of documents necessary to transfer the property and vehicle in accordance with its terms.

The moving party sought to re-open aspects of a prior family law trial decision concerning pension equalization and spousal support following the responding party’s post‑trial assignment into bankruptcy.

The court found that the bankruptcy constituted a material change in circumstances because it reduced the moving party’s ability to recover the previously ordered equalization payment.

The court ordered a transfer from the responding party’s pension into a locked account to satisfy the equalization amount, arrears, and interest.

The court also revisited spousal support and increased the monthly amount to the mid‑range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Additional property matters were resolved on consent.

Following a family law trial concerning access and household items, the successful party sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the applicant’s costs outline and found the claimed amount reasonable.

The respondent, who was self‑represented, filed extensive submissions largely addressing issues unrelated to the matters litigated at trial.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs for the trial in the amount claimed.

Following a family law trial concerning parenting issues after separation, the court addressed disputes regarding access between the father and the parties’ youngest child.

Evidence demonstrated a high-conflict relationship between the parents and a significant deterioration in the father–child relationship, with the court finding the custodial parent had not sufficiently fostered the children’s relationship with the father.

Applying the maximum contact principle under s. 16(10) of the Divorce Act, the court imposed a structured access schedule, ordered family therapy to rebuild the parent‑child relationship, and included police enforcement provisions for the access order.

The court also addressed disputes over household property allegedly left at the respondent’s residence and ordered partial compensation to the applicant.

The matter was scheduled for review to monitor implementation of the access arrangements.

The applicant brought a motion to change child support and sought retroactive increases dating back to 2005, as well as payment of section 7 extraordinary expenses for a child’s university education.

The parties disputed the respondent’s historical income, including allegations that the respondent worked abroad and failed to disclose employment.

The court found the evidence regarding the respondent’s past income to be conflicting and insufficient to justify retroactive increases or waiver of arrears.

Based on the respondent’s WSIB income grossed up for guideline purposes, the court increased ongoing child support prospectively and ordered limited contribution to post-secondary expenses.