Nancy L. Dennison

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment of approximately $37,000 granted in favour of the plaintiff for unpaid fuel invoices.

The defendants had mistakenly filed their statement of defence in the Small Claims Court and, upon discovering the error, learned that default judgment had already been entered.

Applying the Mountain View Farms factors, the court found that while the defendants delayed in obtaining necessary documents, they had demonstrated an intent to defend the action from the beginning and raised an arguable defence regarding miscalculated rebates.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was granted, though existing writs of execution were ordered to remain in effect pending further order.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Assessment Review Board dismissing their property tax assessment appeals for failing to comply with filing deadlines.

The Board had transferred the older appeals into a 'Legacy Appeals' stream with accelerated timelines.

The applicants argued the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by creating this stream without formally amending its Rules and acted in a procedurally unfair manner.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no error of law.

The Court held that the Board had jurisdiction under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to manage its processes and set schedules, and that any procedural irregularities in the dismissal motion were cured before the hearing.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Assessment Review Board dismissing their property tax assessment appeals for failing to comply with filing deadlines under a new 'Legacy Appeals' schedule.

The applicants argued the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by creating the Legacy Appeals stream without formally amending its rules and that the dismissal was procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision and no important question of law.

The Court held the Board had jurisdiction to manage its processes and set schedules, and any procedural irregularities in the dismissal motion were cured before the hearing.

The Applicant/Mother sought divorce, sole decision-making authority and primary residence for the child, supervised parenting time for the Father, retroactive and ongoing child support, a restraining order, and an order regarding a jointly purchased vehicle.

The Respondent/Father was noted in default and did not participate in the uncontested trial.

The court granted the Mother sole decision-making authority and primary residence, ordered supervised parenting time for the Father, imputed an interim income to the Father for child support purposes and ordered financial disclosure, issued a final restraining order against the Father, and ordered the Father to take over the car loan payments and reimburse the Mother for past payments, or transfer ownership to the Mother.

Costs were awarded to the Mother.

The complainant brought a certiorari application to quash an order granted by a lower court judge that permitted the accused to enter her home to retrieve personal belongings and take photographs.

The order was granted on consent of the Crown, but without notice to the complainant.

The Superior Court found that the complainant had standing to bring the application as a non-party directly impacted by the order.

The court held that the lower court judge made a jurisdictional error, as there was no statutory or common law authority to grant such an order without notice to the third party whose privacy interests were affected.

The order was quashed.

The plaintiff lawyer brought an action for unpaid legal fees totaling $68,893.92 against his former client.

The parties had an oral retainer agreement for mortgage enforcement work.

The defendant disputed the terms of the retainer and the reasonableness of the fees.

The court found that the parties agreed to an hourly rate of $575.

After assessing the accounts and reducing some charges for unreasonableness, the court ordered the defendant to pay $38,342.42 in outstanding fees, plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of fentanyl after a traffic stop.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging racial profiling, arbitrary detention, denial of right to counsel, and unreasonable search and seizure (including a strip search).

The court found no evidence of racial profiling, as the officers did not see the accused before running his licence plate.

The court found a minor breach of s. 10(a) because the officers delayed explaining the specific charges on the outstanding warrant, but admitted the drug evidence under s. 24(2).

The searches of the vehicle and the accused were upheld as lawful incidents to arrest.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

Following a trial where the applicant mother was successful in obtaining primary residence of the parties' son, she sought costs on a full or partial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle, allegations of bad faith, and the respondent father's ability to pay.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality under the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $28,000 in costs.

The appellant, a surgeon, appealed his conviction for sexually assaulting a hospital housekeeper.

He argued the trial judge made several errors in assessing credibility, including improperly considering race in finding a power imbalance, misapprehending evidence, and making a Browne and Dunn error.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly based the power imbalance on the parties' respective roles in the hospital and made no reversible errors in his credibility assessments or application of the law.

The Crown appealed a suspended sentence and 12 months' probation imposed on the respondent, a first-time offender who pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm for choking his domestic partner to the point of unconsciousness.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court found the sentence demonstrably unfit and held that the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to give sufficient weight to denunciation and deterrence.

The court determined the fit sentence was 60 days' imprisonment less pre-trial custody, plus 12 months' probation.

However, given the appellate delay and the respondent's rehabilitative gains, the court permanently stayed the execution of the custodial sentence.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings due to his failure to comply with numerous court orders regarding spousal support, costs, and financial disclosure.

The respondent claimed impecuniosity, which the court rejected, finding he had significant equity in the former matrimonial home and led a lavish lifestyle.

The court held that the respondent's non-compliance was wilful.

Recognizing that striking pleadings is a remedy of last resort, the court ordered the respondent to pay all outstanding costs and spousal support arrears within 150 days, failing which the applicant was granted leave to renew her motion to strike his pleadings and proceed to an uncontested trial.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order to allow the parties' six-year-old child to reside primarily with her in Barrie, rather than alternating weeks between Barrie and the respondent father's home in Pembroke.

The court found that the child entering full-time school constituted a material change in circumstances.

After weighing the factors under the Divorce Act, including the mother's historical role as primary caregiver, the child's strong bond with his half-brother, and the recommendations of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, the court determined it was in the child's best interests to reside primarily with the mother.

The father was granted liberal parenting time.

The applicant and respondent purchased a house together as tenants in common.

The respondent moved out shortly after, and the applicant paid all mortgage and maintenance fees while living in the property rent-free.

After the property was sold, the applicant sought a declaration of unjust enrichment and a constructive trust, claiming 90% of the net proceeds.

The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding the applicant suffered no deprivation and there was a juristic reason to enforce their agreement to split proceeds equally.

The court ordered the net proceeds to be divided equally after accounting for deductions, including the applicant's operating expenses and the respondent's entitlement to occupational rent.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving, arguing the trial judge failed to properly apply the W.D. framework and erred in assessing credibility.

An off-duty officer had observed the appellant driving erratically on Highway 401, which was captured on dash camera.

The appellant later crashed his vehicle and was arrested, exhibiting signs of impairment.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the burden of proof, did not reverse the onus, and sufficiently explained his reasons for rejecting the appellant's evidence and accepting the officers' observations.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for assault with a weapon, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence, applied uneven scrutiny to the testimonies, erred in assessing motive, and reversed the burden of proof under W. (D.).

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly assessed the credibility of both parties in light of the physical evidence, including the complainant's severe injuries from a hatchet, and correctly applied the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was arrested for impaired care and control after police responded to a call about individuals drinking and smashing bottles in a parking lot.

A search incident to arrest revealed a loaded firearm.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging multiple breaches of his rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), seeking to exclude the firearm and his refusal to provide a breath sample under s. 24(2).

The court found minor breaches of ss. 10(a) and 10(b) but concluded the evidence was either not obtained in a manner that infringed the Charter or should not be excluded under the Grant framework.

The Crown's application to admit the accused's statements regarding his identity was granted.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion seeking an interlocutory order vesting title of a disputed property in their names to allow them to refinance and avoid eviction, as well as a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) and an order setting aside the noting of default on the defendant's counterclaim.

The parties disputed the beneficial ownership of the property, which was registered in the defendant's name.

The Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) had previously found the plaintiffs to be tenants and ordered their eviction due to mortgage defaults.

The court set aside the noting of default due to the plaintiffs' former counsel's negligence.

However, the court dismissed the requests for a vesting order and a CPL, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured them.

The court also found the motion constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the LTB's eviction order.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgement to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims of malicious prosecution, defamation, and fraud/theft relating to a saving circle and employment termination.

The defendants also sought default judgement on their counterclaim for theft.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion for summary judgement.

The court granted partial summary judgement dismissing the malicious prosecution and defamation claims, finding no evidence that the police lacked independent discretion in laying charges or that defamatory statements were made to third parties.

The court found genuine issues requiring a trial for the saving circle and employment monies claims due to credibility issues.

The court also set aside the noting of default on the counterclaim to avoid inconsistent findings at trial.

The self-represented plaintiff filed a $3 million claim against the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), alleging the CRA negligently permitted her ex-husband to use her identity to obtain an EFILE number.

The CRA brought a motion to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff evaded service and failed to attend the hearing.

The court proceeded in her absence, struck the statement of claim in its entirety without leave to amend, finding that the CRA owed no duty of care or fiduciary duty to the plaintiff, and that the claims of malfeasance, conspiracy, and other torts lacked material facts.

Costs of $14,500 were awarded to the CRA.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce an alleged oral separation agreement reached between the parties' former counsel.

The respondent argued no agreement was reached and that the discussions were without prejudice.

The court found it had jurisdiction to enforce an oral settlement despite non-compliance with the strict formalities of section 55 of the Family Law Act.

However, the court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial existed due to diametrically opposed evidence from the two lawyers regarding their settlement discussions.

The court declined to use enhanced fact-finding powers, as the credibility of counsel could not be fairly assessed on a paper record.