M. J. Donohue

The plaintiff brought an action against a police officer and the police services board for intrusion upon seclusion, harassment, and bullying.

The officer, who was the ex-spouse of the plaintiff's boyfriend, had conducted brief, unauthorized searches of the plaintiff's name in a police database for personal reasons.

The court dismissed the intrusion upon seclusion claim, finding the searches were a minimal invasion of privacy that a reasonable person would not consider highly offensive.

The court also dismissed the harassment claims, concluding the officer's communications were not outrageous or threatening, and found no basis for vicarious liability against the police services board.

In a supplementary judgment following a family law trial, the court determined child and spousal support.

The applicant sought child support and the respondent sought spousal support.

The central issue was determining the respondent's income, as she had been a stay-at-home parent and received extensive, ongoing financial gifts from her parents throughout the marriage and post-separation.

The court imputed an annual income of $80,000 to the respondent based on her underemployment and the consistent, substantial gifts from her parents that covered housing, vehicles, and living expenses.

The respondent was ordered to pay child support based on this imputed income, and was awarded spousal support at the low end of the Guidelines ($1,000 per month) for seven years.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to collect funds advanced to the defendants pursuant to three promissory notes and a mortgage.

The defendants raised several defences, including that the interest rates offended the Criminal Code, lack of consent to the assignment of the debts, alleged payments made, extinguishment of the debt by power of sale, and an agreement not to enforce.

The court found no genuine issue for trial on any of the defences, noting the interest rates were below the criminal rate and the defendants had acknowledged the full amounts owing.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the principal amounts plus interest.

The parties, who separated in 2021, sought orders regarding the primary residence, schooling, parenting time, decision-making, and support for their seven-year-old daughter.

The mother, who had moved to Hamilton for full-time employment, sought to have the child reside with her and attend school in Hamilton, while the father sought to maintain the status quo in St. Catharines.

The court ordered the child's primary residence to be with the mother in Hamilton and changed her school, citing the mother's employment, the father's age and health, and the mother's lack of a driver's licence.

The court ordered a shared parenting schedule, with the father having the child on weekends.

The mother was granted sole decision-making for major decisions, but joint decision-making was ordered for psychological treatment.

The mother was also ordered to pay child support and spousal support to the father.

The accused, a trucking dispatcher, was found guilty of importing 50 kilograms of cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine.

The Crown sought 13 to 15 years imprisonment, while the defence sought 9 to 12 years.

The court considered the significant quantity of cocaine, the accused's role in directing an unknowing driver, and his lack of a criminal record.

The court sentenced the accused to 12 years for importing and 9 years for conspiracy, to be served concurrently, less 104 days of pre-sentence and Downes credit, resulting in a net sentence of 11 years and 261 days.

The accused, a head dispatcher for a trucking company, was charged with importing cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine after 50 bricks of cocaine were found hidden in a shipment of plastic resin at the Canadian border.

The accused denied knowledge of the conspiracy, claiming he was unaware the shipment had been diverted to avoid a police search in Texas and that a co-worker had arranged the falsified customs documents.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as not credible, finding that his actions—including maintaining a cover story, rerouting the shipment, and sending falsified documents—provided overwhelming circumstantial evidence of his knowledge and participation.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The applicants sought an order for adverse possession of a parcel of city-owned parkland that had been enclosed in their backyard by a chain-link fence for decades.

The City acknowledged the traditional test for adverse possession was met but argued the lands were immune as public property.

The court found that the lands were originally expropriated for a high public interest purpose and that private individuals cannot acquire title by fencing off public lands.

The application for adverse possession was dismissed.

The parties separated and proceeded to a matrimonial trial to resolve outstanding issues regarding property division, section 7 expenses, and parenting matters.

The court determined the values of disputed assets for the Net Family Property calculations and ordered the respondent to pay his share of the children's hot lunches.

The applicant was granted the right to travel internationally without the respondent's consent, but her request for broad mobility rights was restricted to a 50-kilometre radius from Grimsby.

The court dismissed the respondent's claim for occupation rent and the applicant's claim for an unequal division of the matrimonial home's post-separation increase in value, finding that the high threshold for unconscionability under section 5(6) of the Family Law Act was not met.

In this family law trial, the court determined issues of decision-making, parenting time, child and spousal support, and equalization following a high-conflict separation.

The mother was awarded sole decision-making authority for most issues due to poor communication between the parents, with joint decision-making reserved for the child's psychological needs.

The father was granted a parenting schedule of 10 overnights per 28-day cycle.

The mother was awarded short-term, needs-based spousal support and retroactive child support.

For equalization, funds advanced by the mother's parents were deemed a loan rather than a gift, and the father was ordered to reimburse the mother for carrying costs of the matrimonial home during his exclusive possession.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against two unit owners for compliance orders under the Condominium Act.

The corporation alleged the respondents engaged in aggressive, intimidating, and harassing behaviour toward the board, staff, and other owners, including physical altercations, posting inappropriate notices, and installing an unauthorized wildlife camera.

The court found the respondents breached their obligations under sections 117 and 119 of the Act and granted the requested compliance orders, prohibiting them from harassing others or disturbing the quiet enjoyment of the property.

Following a 28-year marriage, the parties sought resolution of financial issues including spousal support and equalization of net family property.

The applicant, who had been on disability income since 1990, sought compensatory support, an unequal division of property, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court ordered needs-based spousal support, calculating the respondent's income based on his gross commission earnings less reasonable business expenses.

The court denied the applicant's claims for retroactive support prior to the application date, unequal division of property, and exclusive possession, ordering the sale of the jointly owned properties and an equalization payment to the applicant.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2013 child support order, seeking to impute an income of $50,000 to $65,000 to the respondent father and claiming retroactive section 7 expenses.

The respondent argued his income was limited due to severe, long-standing mental health issues, including ADHD and depression.

The court reviewed the respondent's medical history and employment efforts, finding he was not intentionally under-employed but was managing his health challenges as best he could.

The court imputed only a modest additional $3,500 to his reported income based on actual earnings from odd jobs.

The court dismissed the applicant's claims for retroactive section 7 expenses, a life insurance order, and a restraining order, but ordered proportional sharing of future section 7 expenses.

The plaintiffs and defendants entered into two joint venture agreements for real estate investments, where the defendants acted as passive investors holding legal title and mortgages, while the plaintiffs managed the properties and held beneficial ownership.

At the end of the four-year terms, the defendants refused to cooperate with the sale of the properties, claiming the plaintiffs breached the agreements and seeking beneficial ownership.

The court found that the defendants breached the agreements by unreasonably refusing to sell, dismissed the defendants' counterclaim, and ordered specific performance for the sale of both properties along with damages for the delay.

The applicant grandmother brought a motion for alternate weekend access to her five-and-a-half-year-old grandchild.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to dismiss the grandmother's pleadings and leave contact to her discretion, having cut off contact a year prior.

The child's father was incarcerated and not involved.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding triable issues.

Applying the Chapman framework, the court found a longstanding positive relationship existed between the grandmother and child, which the mother arbitrarily imperiled over a dispute regarding service of litigation documents.

The court ordered temporary contact of two full Saturdays per month to gently reintegrate the grandmother into the child's life.

The parties separated in 2015 and the mother sought sole custody, primary residence, and child support for their eight-year-old son.

The father sought sole custody and alleged the mother alienated the child and caused him financial abuse.

The court found no evidence of alienation or abuse by the mother, noting she provided a stable home and facilitated access.

The court granted the mother sole custody and primary residence, ordered alternate weekend access for the father, and imputed income to the father to calculate ongoing and retroactive child support.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to discontinue their simplified procedure action with prejudice.

The action involved a claim for latent defects in a purchased property.

The plaintiffs sought to discontinue because their expert became unavailable, the defendant was unable or unwilling to be examined for discovery, and the defendant was impecunious with unpaid costs awards.

The court applied the factors for granting leave to discontinue and found that the prejudice to the plaintiffs in continuing the action outweighed any prejudice to the defendant.

The motion was granted.

The parties resolved all corollary issues for divorce except primary residence and decision-making responsibilities for their eight-year-old daughter.

The applicant mother sought to move the child's primary residence to Ancaster to live with her new partner, while the respondent father sought to keep the child's primary residence in St. Catharines where she had grown up.

The court ordered joint decision-making, finding the parents had a history of co-parenting despite their conflict.

The court ordered the child's primary residence to remain in St. Catharines with the father, finding that the move to Ancaster would cause significant disruption to the child's life and that the mother's negative behaviour towards the father raised concerns about her ability to facilitate maximum contact.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale of a residential property.

The defendant seller had refused to close, arguing she lacked the legal right to sell because her mortgagee had obtained a writ of possession.

The court found that the defendant retained title and the equitable right of redemption, and thus had the capacity to sell.

Finding no genuine issue for trial, the court granted summary judgment and awarded the plaintiff $71,900 in damages, representing the increase in the property's value.

The parties separated in 2015 and proceeded to a family law trial to resolve issues of decision-making, parenting time, spousal support, and financial adjustments.

The mother sought sole decision-making and relied on allegations of domestic violence, which the court found to be overstated and not a factor in decision-making.

The court awarded joint decision-making and increased the father's parenting time, though it denied his request for an equal timesharing schedule.

The court imputed an income of $30,000 to the mother and ordered the father to pay mid-range spousal support for a time-limited duration of three further years.

Various financial adjustments to the equalization payment were also ordered.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order to place a five-year-old child in extended society care without access for the purpose of adoption.

The child had been in care for over two and a half years due to the parents' substance abuse issues.

Despite numerous opportunities and referrals, neither parent successfully completed relapse prevention or treatment programs.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial, and ordered the child placed in extended care with no access to the parents, concluding it was in the child's best interests.