Michael T. Doi

The parties separated after a common law relationship.

The father sought primary residence, decision-making responsibility, child support, and occupation rent for the home he solely owned but where the mother continued to reside.

The mother claimed a constructive trust over the home, alleging she contributed to the mortgage.

The court granted the father primary residence and decision-making for the younger child, ordered the mother to pay child support, and dismissed the mother's constructive trust claim due to lack of evidence of unjust enrichment.

The court also ordered the mother to vacate the home and pay $56,848 in occupation rent for her extended stay.

On a post-trial distribution motion arising from a failed land development scheme, the court addressed competing claims between settling investors and investors who proceeded through trial and appeals.

The settling parties obtained judgment on their settlement agreements, but were denied equitable liens over preserved funds because their rights were contractual, the defendants were not shown to own the preserved funds, and equity favoured the trial parties who preserved assets and bore the burdens of the litigation.

The court also held that the trial parties lacked standing to raise limitation defences to enforcement of the settlements, and excluded a disputed email under settlement privilege.

The funds paid into court were ordered distributed pro rata among the trial parties, subject to specified limitations tied to claims against one defendant.

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, or alternatively to lift the automatic stay of eviction or order security for costs.

The tenant had persistently failed to pay rent, accumulating approximately $25,000 in arrears, and failed to comply with a prior case management order to pay rent into trust.

The court declined to quash the appeal, finding it raised arguable procedural fairness issues.

However, the court found the tenant's ongoing occupation without paying rent constituted an abuse of process.

The court ordered the stay of eviction lifted unless the tenant paid $15,000 into trust within 30 days.

The self-represented plaintiff, Jennifer Scarangella, brought a motion seeking an order to act in a representative capacity on behalf of the estate of her late partner without a lawyer in a medical negligence action.

The defendants opposed, arguing that Rule 15.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires an estate to be represented by a lawyer and that Rule 2.03 should not be applied to dispense with this requirement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it was not an appropriate case to dispense with the requirement for legal representation, particularly because the issue was raised promptly by the defence and the plaintiff was seeking monetary damages for both herself and the estate, engaging the core rationale of Rule 15.01(1).

The plaintiff, Conquest Steel Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment to recover funds allegedly owed by the defendant, Polar Racking Inc., for custom-manufactured products.

The motion also sought leave to amend the title of proceedings to reflect the plaintiff's name change.

The court granted leave to amend the title and awarded judgment to the plaintiff for undisputed invoiced amounts and for uninvoiced products where the defendant had repudiated the contracts.

However, the plaintiff's claims for lost profit on a terminated purchase order and for storage fees were dismissed due to insufficient proof of damages and lack of contractual entitlement, respectively.

The Applicant mother sought various relief including child and spousal support, equalization, and property division following the breakdown of her marriage.

The Respondent father contended that their marriage certificate constituted a domestic contract under foreign law, invalidating these claims.

The court rejected the father's argument due to insufficient proof of foreign law.

The court granted the mother's claims for retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, an equalization payment, and ordered the division of RESP funds and proceeds from the sale of family properties.

The defendant was found guilty by a jury of sexually assaulting his former spouse.

This decision outlines the reasons for sentencing, considering aggravating factors such as breach of trust and physical restraint, and mitigating factors including the defendant's first-time offender status, positive community support, and health issues.

The court imposed a 2.5-year custodial sentence, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a non-communication order, declining DNA and SOIRA orders due to low re-offense risk.

Colautti Landry Partners Professional Corporation (CLP) brought a motion to be removed as solicitors of record for the Plaintiffs, Correct Group Inc. and Correct Building Corporation, citing a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship and failure to pay for legal services.

The Plaintiffs opposed the motion and sought an adjournment, which was denied due to lack of medical evidence and ample prior notice.

The court granted CLP's motion, finding an irreparable breakdown in the relationship due to a significant billing dispute and the Plaintiffs' refusal to sign a new retainer agreement and pay funds.

The court determined that the Plaintiffs would not be seriously prejudiced by the removal at this stage of the proceedings and had sufficient time to retain new counsel, upholding the principles for solicitor withdrawal.

The defendants, a law firm and its lawyers, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a $20 million action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence brought by their former clients.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired with the opposing party in a prior wrongful dismissal action and negligently advised them, leading to an improvident settlement.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial.

It held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a conflict of interest or professional negligence, and that the settlement was not improvident given the risks of continued litigation.

The moving party sought an extension of time under s. 71(2) of the Construction Act to appeal a judgment that declared his construction lien expired and cancelled a $1.212 million lien bond.

The moving party missed the 15-day appeal deadline by 12 days due to his former counsel's incorrect advice regarding the appeal period.

The Divisional Court granted the extension, finding that the moving party had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was minimal and reasonably explained, the respondent suffered no real prejudice, and the proposed appeal regarding the validity of the lien claim had arguable merit.

In a judge-alone criminal trial involving allegations of sexual interference and sexual assault against a child during parenting visits, the court acquitted the accused.

Although the complainant was found to be honest and attempting to tell the truth, the court held that her evidence was not sufficiently reliable because of significant memory limitations and material inconsistencies on central aspects of the alleged incidents.

A second youth witness had previously recanted her allegations to police and later adopted a contrary account, creating serious credibility and reliability concerns.

Applying the reasonable doubt standard, the court held the Crown had not proven either count beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant father sought an equalization of net family property, while the respondent mother claimed ongoing and retroactive child support.

The respondent maternal grandfather claimed a resulting trust over the matrimonial home, alleging he loaned the mother funds to purchase it.

The court found the father rebutted the presumption of resulting trust, determining the funds were a gift.

The court set the date of separation as September 30, 2017, ordered the mother to pay an equalization payment, and imputed income to the father to calculate retroactive and ongoing child support, which was offset against the equalization payment.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking to temporarily relocate with the children to St. Julian’s, Malta, and for ancillary orders for primary residence and sole decision-making.

The respondent father opposed the relocation, citing concerns about the children's cultural, linguistic, religious, and stability needs, as well as his limited ability to share parenting time post-relocation.

The court granted the mother's motion, finding it in the children's best interests to allow the temporary relocation, primary residence, and sole decision-making to the mother until trial.

The decision also established a graduated in-person parenting schedule for the father, with the mother responsible for travel costs, and liberal daily video contact.

This was a Rule 7.08 motion for court approval of a $5 million settlement for a minor, Ethan Ajayi, in a medical negligence action.

Unusually, the plaintiffs' counsel did not support the settlement terms but was instructed by the litigation guardian to seek approval.

The court approved the settlement and the associated legal fees, finding it to be in the minor's best interests given the inherent risks of litigation, particularly concerning causation and liability.

The decision also addressed the granting of a partial sealing order to protect solicitor-client privileged information, while declining the request for an in camera hearing, thereby balancing the principle of open courts with the need to preserve fair trial rights.

The Moving Defendants, Fulton Development Inc. and 2580867 Ontario Corp., brought a motion to strike all or portions of the Plaintiffs' statement of claim, which included derivative and oppression claims.

The claims arose from a failed real estate transaction, a $500,000 loan, and the alleged misappropriation and improper distribution of a $327,500 refunded deposit by certain directors.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the derivative and oppression claims viable and noting that the motion constituted an impermissible collateral attack on a prior order granting leave for the derivative action.

On consent, a crossclaim and counterclaim from a related 2019 action were consolidated with the current action, and the balance of the 2019 action was stayed.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff claimed damages for physical and mental injuries suffered as a bystander who witnessed a fatal motor vehicle collision allegedly caused by the defendant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it was not plain and obvious that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, as Canadian courts have recognized a potential duty of care to bystanders who suffer nervous shock from witnessing horrific accidents.

This case involved a dispute over the interpretation and enforceability of two settlement agreements (2016 Joint Agreement and 2020 Final Minutes of Settlement) between separated spouses.

The court upheld the validity and binding nature of the 2020 agreement, which ratified and amended the 2016 agreement.

The judgment resolved outstanding issues including spousal support, child support arrears, equalization, property division (matrimonial home and investment property), and post-separation adjustments.

The court dismissed the father's attempt to set aside the agreement based on non-disclosure or unconscionability and clarified various financial obligations.

The moving defendant sought to set aside a noting in default and default judgment obtained against him by the plaintiff bank in an action to enforce a corporate guarantee.

The plaintiff had inadvertently noted the defendant in default before the 20-day deadline to defend had expired.

The court admitted a portion of a settlement-privileged email to assess when the defendant learned of the claim.

Applying the five-factor test, the court found the defendant moved promptly, had a plausible excuse for the default, and raised an arguable misrepresentation defence.

The court set aside the default judgment, concluding it was in the interests of justice to allow the defendant to defend the claim on its merits.

The plaintiffs, a realtor and his brokerage, sought to recover real estate commissions and leasehold improvement costs from the defendants related to the purchase of commercial units.

The defendants raised limitations and illegality as defences, arguing the realtor breached regulatory duties and that an "entire agreement" clause precluded the claims.

The court found the claims were not statute-barred, the entire agreement clause did not apply to exclude the agreed-upon costs and interest-free period, and the defence of illegality was not applicable despite some regulatory breaches by the realtor, as it would result in unjust enrichment for the buyers without prejudice.

The action was allowed in part, holding the individual defendant and two corporate defendants liable for the outstanding amounts with pre-judgment interest, while one corporate defendant was found not liable for a specific unit.