M.G. Ellies

The moving party sought to change a 2016 consent order for spousal support, arguing that his income had materially decreased due to a strike and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The responding party opposed the motion, noting her significant physical disabilities and that the original order was intended to equalize joint debt.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the income decrease was temporary and that the responding party's circumstances justified continued support.

Costs of $1,500 were awarded to the responding party.

The applicant moved for summary judgment to enforce an accepted offer to settle regarding the jointly-owned matrimonial home.

The respondent argued the applicant was only entitled to equity as of the date of separation and sought to extend the expired deadline to buy out the applicant's interest.

The court found a binding agreement existed, the valuation date was the date of buyout or sale, and the respondent was responsible for the delay that caused the buyout deadline to expire.

The court ordered the home to be listed for sale immediately, with the applicant entitled to his share of the equity as of the date of sale.

The defendants moved under Rule 31.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to examine a non-party, a former employee of the plaintiff municipality, under oath.

The underlying action involved allegations that the defendants submitted fraudulent invoices to the municipality.

The court found that the non-party had relevant evidence regarding the invoices and that the defendants had made appropriate efforts to obtain the evidence before resorting to the motion.

The motion was granted, as it would be unfair to require the defendants to proceed to trial without knowing the non-party's evidence.

The accused applied for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code following a detention order by a Justice of the Peace.

The accused argued the JP erred in law by conflating the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention and by failing to apply the ladder principle.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no legal errors.

The court held that the strength of the Crown's case and potential jail sentence are relevant considerations under the secondary grounds, and that the JP correctly concluded no release plan could mitigate the substantial risk of the accused re-offending.

The defendants appealed a master's decision dismissing their motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) obtained ex parte by the plaintiff purchaser.

The defendants argued the plaintiff failed to disclose a 'no registration' clause in the agreement of purchase and sale and that the master misapplied the test for a CPL.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law regarding material non-disclosure, as the clause did not unambiguously prohibit a CPL after the vendor terminated the agreement.

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the master's assessment of the property's uniqueness and the balance of convenience.

The defendant moved to strike the plaintiff's claim for damages for wrongful distraint under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The plaintiff sought damages for relational economic loss, arguing it had a possessory or proprietary interest in restaurant equipment distrained by the defendant landlord from a previous tenant.

The court found that because the defendant had withheld consent to assign the lease to the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not establish a possessory or proprietary interest in the chattels.

The motion was allowed and the claim was dismissed without leave to amend.

The applicant brought a motion within a family law application for equalization of net family property, seeking the partition and sale of a jointly owned property and the vesting of the respondent's corporate shares in her name.

The applicant argued these orders were necessary to preserve her entitlement to an equalization payment due to the respondent's depletion of assets and failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a sale would cause undue hardship to the respondent, who suffered from severe alcoholism, and that the applicant failed to demonstrate the necessity of the orders to secure her claim.

A non-depletion order was issued against the respondent.

The respondent husband brought a motion to transfer a family law application for spousal support and equalization from Kingston to North Bay.

The applicant wife had properly commenced the application in Kingston, where she resided.

The court applied the test for transferring venue, requiring the moving party to demonstrate that the proposed venue is substantially better.

The court found that the husband's reasons, including his business location, family property, and childcare responsibilities, did not outweigh the significant difficulty a transfer would pose for the wife.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant brought a pre-trial change of venue application before the Regional Senior Judge.

A temporary publication ban was imposed, and the court invited submissions on whether section 648(1) of the Criminal Code automatically bans publication of information regarding pre-trial applications heard before a jury is chosen.

The court held that section 648(1) does not apply to applications heard before a jury is empanelled, nor to change of venue applications, nor to applications heard by a judge other than the trial judge.

Instead, publication bans for such pre-trial applications must be determined using the common law Dagenais/Mentuck test.

The accused underwent a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code after being in custody for over four months on charges of uttering threats and breach of probation.

The court found that while the secondary grounds for detention were met due to the likelihood of reoffending, the accused had already served more time in pre-trial custody (with enhanced credit) than the likely maximum sentence of six months.

Consequently, the court ordered the accused's release on terms.

The applicant mother moved for week-about access to her two children, who had been living with the respondent father since separation.

The father opposed, citing the mother's ongoing substance abuse and mental health issues, which had led to CAS involvement.

The court found that the current access arrangements lacked structure and required a change.

However, due to the mother's ongoing issues and the negative impact on the children, the court denied week-about access and instead ordered a temporary weekend access regime.

The accused, facing charges of dangerous driving and trafficking large quantities of fentanyl, underwent a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The accused argued that the passage of time, the COVID-19 pandemic, and a new release plan constituted material changes in circumstances warranting his release.

The court found insufficient evidence that the accused was at a greater risk of contracting COVID-19 or suffering severe harm from it in custody.

Furthermore, the proposed release plan lacked sufficient detail to address the significant secondary and tertiary ground concerns arising from the severity of the offences.

The court ordered the accused's continued detention.

Following a successful motion by the plaintiff to set aside a registrar’s administrative dismissal of an action, the court addressed the issue of costs.

Although the plaintiff succeeded in reinstating the action, the court held that the defendants were entitled to their costs because the reinstatement constituted an indulgence and the defendants were not unreasonable in opposing the motion.

The court found that the defendants had legitimate grounds to resist reinstatement given the long delay and expiry of the limitation period.

The request for substantial indemnity costs was rejected, but the defendants were awarded partial indemnity costs.