Michael R. Gibson

The applicant and respondent cohabited for 23 years but were never married.

After separation, the applicant brought a claim for unjust enrichment and a share of the respondent's property, arguing they were engaged in a joint family venture.

The court dismissed the claim, finding both parties had significant credibility issues and the applicant failed to prove she made financial or non-pecuniary contributions that enriched the respondent.

The court concluded there was no mutual effort, economic integration, or actual intent to share assets.

The self-represented parties engaged in a high-conflict family law trial primarily concerning financial issues, including exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, spousal support, and division of net family property.

The trial judge noted significant evidentiary deficiencies, as neither party presented a coherent case or sufficient evidence to substantiate most claims.

The court granted the applicant exclusive possession of the matrimonial home under s. 24 of the Family Law Act to prevent an escalation of family violence and in the best interests of the child.

The parties were ordered to share section 7 expenses equally, while the applicant's claims for spousal support, child support arrears, and unequal division of net family property were dismissed due to a lack of evidentiary foundation.

The respondent mother brought a motion to change a 2017 consent order to reinstate parenting time with her child, which had been suspended since 2020.

The mother struggled with severe substance abuse, mental health issues, and instability, and exhibited inappropriate behaviour during the virtual trial.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

Finding that the mother's current instability posed a risk to the child's safety and well-being, the court dismissed the motion to change, maintaining the suspension of parenting time.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike portions of a statement of claim arising from a police shooting.

The moving parties sought to strike claims against three chiefs of police, three unnamed John Doe constables, and claims for punitive and aggravated damages.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Police Services Act does not create a private law duty of care for police chiefs, the John Doe constables were empty placeholders without material facts, and the claims for punitive and aggravated damages lacked the requisite factual basis.

The applicant sought declarations arising from the termination of a seasonal campground occupancy and a subsequent trespass arrest, asserting that the arrangement created a commercial tenancy and that eviction without a writ of possession was unlawful.

The court held the arrangement was a revocable licence, not a lease, because there was no conveyance of exclusive possession and the contractual documents expressly created a licence for seasonal recreational use.

Neither the Commercial Tenancies Act nor the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 applied, and the licensor was entitled under the contract to revoke the licence for breach of campground rules.

After revocation, the applicant had no lawful authority to remain on the premises, and the police acted within their powers under the Trespass to Property Act in arresting him when he refused to leave.

The claim for damages for unlawful arrest, eviction, and reputational harm was dismissed.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought an action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment against the defendant general contractor and owner after a dispute over site conditions for waterproofing work.

The defendant counterclaimed, alleging the plaintiff abandoned the project and failed to provide adequate manpower.

The court found that the plaintiff did not breach the contract and reasonably refused to apply waterproofing in unsuitable, wet conditions.

The court held that the defendant anticipatorily repudiated the contract by issuing an unsubstantiated Notice of Default, seizing the plaintiff's equipment, and hiring a replacement contractor.

The plaintiff was awarded $201,871.74 for outstanding money owed, while the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiff sued his former employer for constructive dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and human rights damages, alleging he was forced out after taking a medical leave.

The employer argued the plaintiff voluntarily resigned and, alternatively, that there was just cause for termination because the plaintiff performed unauthorized side jobs for cash using company resources.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff was not constructively dismissed when the employer requested the return of his company vehicle and cellphone.

The court further held that even if he had been dismissed, the employer had just cause due to the plaintiff's breach of the duty of loyalty and misappropriation of company property.

The human rights claims were also dismissed.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay in bringing the matter to trial.

The total delay from arrest to the scheduled end of trial was 1029 days, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court analyzed the delay, attributing significant periods to the defence due to issues like obtaining and changing counsel.

Additionally, the court recognized the COVID-19 pandemic as a discrete exceptional circumstance, deducting the associated delays.

After accounting for defence-attributable and exceptional delays, the net delay fell substantially below the Jordan ceiling.

Consequently, the court found no infringement of the applicant's right to be tried within a reasonable time and dismissed the application for a stay.

The parties, married in 2005 and separated in 2018, proceeded to trial to resolve issues of divorce, child support, parenting orders, and equalization of net family property.

The case involved three children, two of whom were teenagers with mental health challenges who expressed preferences for autonomy in parenting time.

The court addressed the applicant father's request for shared decision-making and parenting time for all children, the respondent mother's request for spousal support, and the determination of child support.

The court ordered shared decision-making responsibility for all children, primary residence with the mother, and granted the older children autonomy regarding time with the father.

The youngest child's week-about schedule continued, with a request for an updated Voice of the Child Report.

Child support was maintained at the previously imputed income level, and spousal support was denied due to insufficient evidentiary support.

The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident and commenced an action against the driver and owner, which was administratively dismissed for delay.

The plaintiff later commenced a second action against the lessee of the vehicle.

The lessee moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The plaintiff moved to set aside the administrative dismissal of the first action.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding the lessee's identity was not reasonably discoverable until the plaintiff received correspondence from the insurer.

However, the court also dismissed the plaintiff's motion to set aside the administrative dismissal, finding an inordinate and unexplained delay that prejudiced the defendants.

The defendants brought a motion seeking joinder of three separate actions initiated by the plaintiff, 2209509 Ontario Inc. operating as Norfolk Fairway Estates, concerning claims for "extras" on new home constructions.

They also sought an order for security for costs.

The plaintiff opposed both requests.

The court granted the joinder, finding common questions of law and fact across the actions and that joinder would promote the convenient administration of justice.

The court also granted the order for security for costs, determining that the plaintiff, an amalgamated corporation, had not sufficiently demonstrated it possessed exigible assets in Ontario to cover potential costs.

The applicant sought to add two non-parties, Francis Montour and Greg Hill, to a family law proceeding and compel their questioning, asserting their relevance to a trust claim over "on reserve" properties and a tobacco farming business.

The respondent and proposed added parties opposed.

The court, applying Family Law Rules 7(5) and 20(5), found that the dispute between the primary parties could be resolved without adding the non-parties and that the motion for questioning was premature as the applicant had not exhausted other disclosure methods.

The applicant's motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application seeking a declaration that he was a director of a not-for-profit corporation and that a respondent director was in a conflict of interest for purchasing adjacent property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant was not a director under the Letters Patent and lacked standing to bring a derivative action without leave.

The court also upheld the finding that the respondent director was not in a conflict of interest, as the purchase was transparent and approved by the corporation.

Nieltech Services Ltd., a subcontractor, brought a motion for summary judgment against Rosa Nudo-Perras, a director of Wasero Construction (1991) Ltd., for breach of trust under the Construction Act.

Nieltech claimed $45,757.26 for unpaid services.

Wasero and another director had declared bankruptcy, and Nudo failed to provide a proper accounting of trust funds.

The court found that Nieltech discharged its onus to prove a trust and non-payment, and Nudo failed to discharge her onus to account for the funds.

The court determined there was no genuine issue for trial and granted summary judgment against Nudo, finding her personally liable for the breach of trust.

The plaintiff sued his former solicitor and law firm for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty regarding the preparation of a marriage contract.

The marriage contract was previously set aside in a divorce proceeding because the plaintiff's former spouse did not understand its nature and consequences, largely due to the solicitor's failure to ensure proper independent legal advice and his conflict of interest.

The court found the solicitor breached the standard of care and his fiduciary duties.

The court held that 'but for' the solicitor's negligence, the marriage contract would have been enforceable, and awarded the plaintiff damages for the equalization payment, legal costs, and financing interest incurred.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment determining his net entitlement to insurance proceeds following a house fire.

The trial judge had allowed the insurer to set off an overpayment for the house's replacement cost against the appellant's damages for contents, despite the insurer failing to plead set-off as an affirmative defence.

The Divisional Court held that the trial judge erred in law by allowing the unpleaded set-off, as it caused trial unfairness and prejudiced the appellant's litigation and settlement strategy.

The appeal was allowed in part to set aside the set-off, but dismissed regarding the trial judge's factual findings on artwork valuation and additional living expenses.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order for a debt owed to the respondent bank, arguing he received the motion materials only 14 days before the hearing, leaving insufficient time to prepare or retain counsel.

The appellant failed to perfect the appeal or attend the hearing.

The Divisional Court found no evidence that the appellant had requested an adjournment or attempted to retain counsel, and held that 14 days was not an unreasonable timeframe to prepare.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a costs award made by the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The Tribunal had dismissed the respondent's claim but awarded $200 in costs against the successful appellant because the claim was novel and the respondent was not unreasonable in pursuing it.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that while novelty and reasonableness might justify not awarding costs against an unsuccessful party, they do not justify awarding costs against a successful party absent bad faith or misconduct.

The costs order was set aside.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for assault and assault with a weapon, seeking to withdraw his guilty pleas on the basis that they were involuntary, uninformed, and the result of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish that his pleas were invalid or that he suffered prejudice.

The court rejected the appellant's credibility, noting he admitted to lying to the court during his plea allocution to achieve his goals.

The plaintiff, a 22-year employee, claimed he was constructively dismissed when his employer allegedly demoted him from Regional Sales Manager to Project Manager.

The employer maintained that the plaintiff had always functioned as a Project Manager and that no demotion occurred.

Following a trial, the court found that the employer did not breach an essential term of the employment contract and did not evince an intention to no longer be bound by it.

The court concluded that the plaintiff voluntarily resigned, and the action for wrongful dismissal was dismissed.