M. P. Eberhard

Following an oral judgment ordering the resumption of contact between a parent and child, the court directed counsel to provide submissions or a consent agreement regarding the practical facilitation and early schedule for the contact.

The court scheduled a follow-up hearing in the event the parties could not agree.

The applicant step-father sought costs following a successful motion to resume contact with the child.

He sought full recovery costs of $26,570.27 based on an offer to settle.

The respondent mother argued for reduced costs due to partial success, financial hardship, and trauma-based motivations.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful on the core issue of resuming contact and that his costs were proportional.

The court fixed costs at $20,000, to be paid at a rate of $200 per month set off against the applicant's ongoing child support obligations.

The applicant step-father brought a motion seeking contact and parenting time with his 5-year-old step-child after the respondent mother unilaterally terminated contact for nine months.

The mother argued that as a non-parent, the applicant had no presumptive right to access and that resumed contact would negatively affect her mental health.

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated a settled intention to treat the child as his own and had been authentically involved in parenting.

The court ordered the resumption of contact, emphasizing that a biological parent cannot arbitrarily deprive a child of a committed step-parent relationship.

The applicant husband's pleadings were struck for failure to provide financial disclosure.

The respondent wife proceeded by way of an uncontested trial, seeking child support, spousal support, and an equalization payment.

The court imputed an annual income of $800,000 to the applicant based on his history of high earnings, hidden assets, and intentional underemployment.

The court ordered the applicant to pay $1,961,318 in support arrears, ongoing child and spousal support, and a $6,000,000 equalization payment.

Full recovery costs of $460,000 were awarded to the respondent.

Following a bifurcated trial regarding the departure of financial advisors and the valuation of a business, the successful plaintiffs sought costs.

The court found that while formal Rule 49 offers were not triggered, the defendants' reprehensible and deceitful conduct prior to litigation, as well as their refusal to admit facts during the trial, warranted an enhanced costs award.

Costs were fixed at $160,000, payable jointly and severally by two of the defendants.

A third defendant, against whom liability was found but no damages were sought, was not held liable for costs.

The applicant father brought a motion to change the parenting schedule for their 10-year-old child from a week-about arrangement to primary residence with the father.

The child had consistently expressed a desire to live with the father, amidst ongoing high conflict between the parents and concerns regarding the mother's physical discipline.

The court considered the views and preferences of the child, the evidence from the Office of the Children's Lawyer, and the history of conflict.

The court granted the motion, ordering primary residence with the father and alternate weekend parenting time for the mother, along with mandatory counselling for the child and parents.

The moving defendants (Ironman Canada Inc., Triathlon Ontario, and World Triathlon Corporation) sought summary judgment to dismiss a co-defendant's crossclaim and grant their counterclaim against the plaintiff, based on a Release and Waiver of Liability, Assumption of Risk and Indemnity Agreement.

The court found the waiver of the right to sue enforceable against the plaintiff, who had electronically accepted it.

However, the indemnity clause within the agreement was deemed unenforceable due to its dense, unclear legalese, which failed to adequately convey its meaning and onerous positive obligations.

The court also determined that the co-defendant motorist, Beatrice Jackson, was not a third-party beneficiary of the release, as she was not an entity associated or involved with the activities as defined in the agreement.

Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed in its entirety.

The plaintiff vendor moved for summary judgment for damages arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The defendant purchaser failed to close on the agreed date and requested an extension, which the vendor refused after counter-offers were not accepted.

The purchaser argued the vendor failed to mitigate by not granting the extension.

The court rejected this argument, applying appellate authority that a vendor is not obliged to mitigate by reselling to the defaulting purchaser.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff for damages, with the deposit forfeited and applied to the damages, and pre-judgment interest awarded at the contractual rate of 12%.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order regarding child custody, access, and support.

The respondent father sought shared custody and the rescission of child support arrears.

The court found the father lacked the personality and stability required for shared custody, noting his history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and failure to pay child support.

The court ordered primary residence to remain with the mother, set a specific alternate weekend access schedule for the father, and refused to rescind the child support arrears, though it reduced them slightly due to a past injury.

This trial addressed a dispute over a child's parenting schedule and child support.

The Applicant Mother sought primary care during the school year, while the Respondent Father sought a week-about schedule.

The court reviewed the father's past mental health incidents and current stability, and the mother's consistent parenting.

The court found the mother's primary care arrangement during the school year to be in the child's best interests, declining the father's request for week-about parenting during the school year due to concerns about his flexibility and past "obsession." Joint custody was ordered, with the mother having final decision-making authority on major issues.

Child support was determined based on the ordered parenting schedule.

Following a five-day trial regarding child mobility, the successful respondent mother sought full indemnity costs of $36,691.05.

The applicant father argued against a costs order due to his impecuniosity and its potential impact on his ability to pay child support and fund access.

The court found the father's litigation position unreasonable and noted the mother beat her offers to settle.

The court generally accepted that full indemnity costs were justified but moderated the quantum to $30,000 payable to Legal Aid Ontario in recognition of the father's current financial circumstances.

The applicants sought costs following the resolution of a dispute regarding the sale of a property.

The court found that the respondent's position and conduct during negotiations and litigation were unreasonable, as she failed to provide evidence or comply with procedural requirements.

The applicants were awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,278.16, to be paid from the respondent's share of the proceeds of the sale of the subject property.

The plaintiff discovered significant structural defects and Building Code violations in his cottage years after purchasing it, rendering it unsafe to occupy.

He claimed coverage under his title insurance policy with the defendant.

The court, applying the Court of Appeal's framework in MacDonald v. Chicago Title, found that the structural defects flowed directly from the inadequacy of the building permit and inspection process, rendering the title unmarketable.

The court held that the loss fell within the covered title risks and was not caught by the policy's exclusions for governmental power or actual knowledge.

Partial judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff on the issue of coverage, with damages bifurcated to a subsequent trial.

The third party grandmother moved for summary judgment to dismiss the defendants' claim that her negligence contributed to her grandson's injury from the defendants' dog.

The child was injured while walking with his grandmother in the neighbourhood.

The court found that even accepting the dog owner's version of events, the grandmother was not negligent as it was reasonable for her to rely on the owner's control of the dog.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the third party claim was dismissed.

Following a seven-day trial regarding adverse possession and a right of way, the parties appeared to settle the formal judgment and address costs.

The court amended the judgment under Rule 59.06 to include an omitted declaration regarding a gate encroachment and adopted registerable Land Titles descriptions for the disputed lands.

On costs, the court found the plaintiff was the substantially successful party and had beaten its pre-trial offer to settle.

The court fixed costs at $500,000 payable to the plaintiff, reflecting the high quality of advocacy and the application of Rule 49.10.

Friday Harbour and its predecessors operated a marina on Lake Simcoe, which involved dredging a channel that submerged part of a right of way (Block C) and using the remaining 'Marina strip' exclusively since the 1960s.

The defendant, owner of Block C, argued the right of way was abandoned and counterclaimed for trespass.

The court found that Friday Harbour acquired ownership of the Marina strip by adverse possession, as its use was open, notorious, exclusive, and inconsistent with the titled owner's intended use.

However, the court also found that Friday Harbour had abandoned its right of way over the 'Western strip' of Block C, as it had relied on the impassability of the barrier between the strips to establish its adverse possession claim.

The plaintiffs brought actions for breach of contract and breach of trust after the defendant general contractor abandoned a construction project.

The defendants were noted in default.

The court found the corporate defendant liable for breach of contract and breach of trust for failing to pay subcontractors.

The sole director of the corporate defendant was found personally liable for the breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act.

The court awarded compensatory damages but declined to award punitive damages or substantial indemnity costs.

In an undefended family property proceeding, the court held that substituted service on a respondent residing in Brazil was sufficient despite the absence of a common binding international service convention between Canada and Brazil.

The applicant sought sole ownership of a jointly titled matrimonial-era home after paying the down payment, mortgage, insurance, taxes, and related debts for many years while receiving no support and facing the respondent's later demand for partition and sale.

The court held that Family Law Act equalization claims were statute-barred, but the Partition Act and equitable claims were available.

Applying unjust enrichment, proprietary estoppel, resulting trust, and vesting order principles, the court severed joint title and revested sole title in the applicant, imposed a restraining order, and awarded costs.

The Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services sought summary judgment for Crown Wardship without access for the purpose of adoption of the child J.M. The mother, C.G., and Beausoliel First Nation opposed.

The court found J.M. to be a child in need of protection due to the mother's ongoing issues with housing, substance abuse, mental health, and anger, and lack of sustained progress over nearly two years in care.

The court dismissed the mother's proposed plan involving the maternal grandmother due to lack of evidence of suitability.

The court also addressed the mother's objections to a potential adoptive placement with relatives from a different First Nation, finding them insufficient to raise a triable issue.

Summary judgment was granted, ordering Crown Wardship without access.

The judge also commented on systemic issues regarding timely legal representation for parents and the lack of resources within First Nations communities.

The plaintiff sought unliquidated damages for personal injuries sustained during a dog attack.

The defendant was noted in default.

The court found the defendant strictly liable under the Dog Owner's Liability Act for the plaintiff's injuries, which occurred when the defendant's dog was set upon him, causing him to fall and sustain severe hand lacerations and other injuries.

General damages, subrogated damages, and special damages for care were awarded.