No one appearing

The appellant father appealed an order for Crown wardship without access, arguing procedural unfairness because the trial judge proceeded with an unopposed trial after the father failed to file an answer to the Society's amended application.

The father argued that under the rules, he should have been deemed to rely on his original answer and was entitled to notice of the trial.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the child's best interests are paramount, the original joint answer was effectively moot, and any procedural error was purely technical and occasioned no substantial wrong.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment seeking damages for wrongful dismissal after the defendant failed to deliver a statement of defence.

The plaintiff, a 60-year-old office manager with 12 years of service, was terminated for alleged cause, which he denied.

The court found the plaintiff was terminated without cause and awarded 24 months' salary in lieu of notice, plus vacation pay and benefits, totaling $157,645.

The court also ordered the defendant to amend the plaintiff's Record of Employment to reflect dismissal without cause and awarded substantial indemnity costs.

The case management judge issued a procedural endorsement following a case conference that the respondent father failed to attend.

The endorsement details a long history of high-conflict family litigation, marked by the father's repeated breaches of court orders, failure to pay support, and alienation of the children from the applicant mother.

The judge noted the father's misuse of judicial resources through numerous urgent and meritless motions.

To control the court's process and protect the children, the judge ordered that neither party may bring further motions without prior leave obtained at a case conference.

The judge also ordered the father to arrange for after-care therapy and warned of severe sanctions, including contempt or striking of pleadings, if he continued to flout court orders.

The defendant driver brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff passenger's action and the co-defendants' cross-claim against him following a motor vehicle collision.

The moving party argued the co-defendant lost control of his vehicle on a snow-covered highway and crossed into the moving party's lane on an on-ramp.

The co-defendant argued the collision occurred in the highway's right lane during a merge.

Applying the summary judgment framework, the court weighed the evidence, including independent witness testimony and accident reconstruction evidence, and found the moving party's version of events reliable.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the moving party's liability and dismissed the claims against him.

The defendants moved for the release of cash posted into court as security to vacate a construction lien under s. 44 of the Construction Lien Act.

The parties were engaged in a private arbitration to resolve their disputes, and the arbitrator had issued a partial award but deferred the determination of costs and counterclaims until the conclusion of the arbitration.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion as premature, finding that competing claims against the security remained unresolved and that releasing funds before the arbitration concluded would be prejudicial.

The plaintiff sued his sisters-in-law for defamation based on a document alleging a preposterous sexual proposition and inappropriate behavior.

The defendants were noted in default.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the statements were not defamatory in the eyes of a reasonable person, given the context of a family dispute, and that the plaintiff's reaction was disproportionate.

The court also expressed doubts about the publication of the statements due to reliance on inadmissible hearsay and the plaintiff's credibility.

The Crown appealed the dismissal of three charges against the respondent, Kenneth Jones, including failing to comply with a s. 161 order and two counts of failing to comply with probation.

The s. 161 order prohibited Jones from attending a "community centre." Jones attended the Evinrude Centre, which he knew was a community centre, to hear the Prime Minister speak.

The trial judge dismissed the charges, finding that Jones might not have reasonably known he could not attend in those circumstances, relying on R. v. Perron.

The Superior Court found the trial judge erred in law by misinterpreting Perron and importing an additional mens rea element not warranted for a s. 161 breach where the location's nature was not in dispute.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial ordered, partly due to an unaddressed defence regarding an exception in the s. 161 order and public interest considerations.

The plaintiff's former lawyer moved to be removed as lawyer of record and for a charging order against any future settlement or judgment in a personal injury action.

The client had terminated the contingency fee retainer and attempted to negotiate directly with the defendant insurer to avoid paying legal fees.

The court granted the motion, finding that the lawyer had brought the action to the eve of trial and any future recovery would be through the instrumentality of his efforts.

The plaintiffs and their insurer, Allstate, brought a motion for default judgment against an uninsured snowmobile driver who struck the plaintiff pedestrian.

The plaintiffs had previously settled their first-party claims with Allstate and assigned their rights against the other defendants to the insurer.

The court declined to grant the requested relief, finding that additional materials were required to clarify the nature of the claims being advanced, the steps taken to discontinue against the Crown, and the evidence supporting the quantum of indemnity and costs sought.

The minor plaintiff, through her litigation guardian, brought a motion for leave to discontinue the action against one of the defendants, the property lessor, after learning the slip and fall occurred inside the store.

The plaintiff also sought to dispense with service on the Children's Lawyer.

The court declined to grant the relief requested due to several deficiencies in the motion record, including inconsistent consents from other defendants, lack of position from cross-claiming defendants, failure to serve the litigation guardian, and insufficient evidence supporting the request to dispense with service on the Children's Lawyer.

The court remained seized and directed the filing of additional materials.

The defendant pharmacy brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff consulting firm's claim for damages and to seek the return of fees paid to the plaintiff and to the defendant's former counsel.

The parties had entered into agreements to defend the pharmacy's principal in a disciplinary proceeding, but the principal died before the hearing.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding the contract was frustrated by the principal's death.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to repay $99,373.70 and the former counsel to repay $30,000, finding that neither provided value for the services rendered.

The applicants sought court approval for a proposed settlement regarding two minors who were bitten by a dog.

The matter settled quickly without an action being commenced for $12,000 and $8,000.

The court reviewed the legal fees and disbursements sought by the applicants' counsel, specifically questioning a $500 file closing fee and a $250 costs insurance fee charged to each minor.

The court found these disbursements were not legitimate and approved the settlement subject to disallowing $1,500 in purported disbursements.

The applicants sought a Norwich Order requiring the respondent website to disclose the personal information of anonymous users who posted allegedly defamatory reviews about the applicants' business.

The respondent did not appear.

The court applied the five-part test for a Norwich Order, finding that the applicants had a bona fide claim for defamation, the respondent was involved in the acts by facilitating the anonymous posts, and the respondent was the only practicable source of the information.

The court granted the order, noting that the interests of justice do not favour permitting anonymous posters to engage in a campaign of defamation with impunity.

The applicant, a minor who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought court approval of a $100,000 settlement of her Statutory Accident Benefits claim.

The court declined to approve the settlement due to significant procedural and evidentiary deficiencies in the application record.

The deficiencies included a lack of notice to the respondent, absence of consent or minutes of settlement, incomplete draft order terms, and insufficient medical and financial evidence to determine if the settlement amount was reasonable.

The court remained seized of the matter and directed the applicant to file additional materials.

The applicant's husband died intestate, leaving a complex international estate.

The applicant sought an extension of the six-month deadline under section 6 of the Family Law Act to elect between an equalization payment and her entitlement under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court granted a one-year extension, finding that the applicant needed more time to assemble a reasonable knowledge base to make an informed choice, the delay was incurred in good faith, and there was minimal prejudice to the estate.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the corporate defendant for breach of a commercial lease.

The corporate defendant failed to pay rent and was noted in default.

The individual defendant had filed for bankruptcy, staying the action against him.

The court found the plaintiff established the breach and took reasonable steps to mitigate its losses.

Default judgment was granted for rent arrears and lost future rent totaling $1,311,672.05, plus substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants for breach of a commercial lease and an associated indemnity agreement.

The defendants stopped paying rent, leading the plaintiff to terminate the lease and re-enter the premises.

Despite being served and given extensions to retain counsel, the defendants did not defend the action or respond to the motion.

The court found the plaintiff established liability and damages, granting default judgment for rent arrears, lost future rent, and costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The maternal grandparents sought leave to be added as parties to a high-conflict family law proceeding between the applicant father and respondent mother, intending to claim access to their grandchildren.

The applicant father opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the grandparents' presence would not assist in resolving the existing issues between the parents and that adding new parties and claims at this late stage would cause significant and undue delay, which was not in the children's best interests.

The court emphasized that adding parties is not intended for individuals to join existing litigation solely to advance their own claims.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment following her termination from the defendant employer.

The defendant's statement of defence had been struck for failure to appoint new counsel.

The court awarded the plaintiff six months' reasonable notice, unpaid overtime, and reimbursement for inappropriate clawbacks.

The court also awarded punitive damages equal to the amount of the plaintiff's statutory entitlements, as the employer had maliciously failed to pay them upon termination.

The respondent was charged with careless driving.

During a court appearance where the respondent intended to plead guilty to an amended charge, the justice of the peace noticed the informant's name was missing from the information and quashed it on her own motion.

The Crown applied for certiorari and mandamus.

The Superior Court found the justice of the peace committed jurisdictional errors by raising the motion herself, failing to consider whether an amendment would prejudice the respondent, and refusing to allow extrinsic evidence to cure the defect.

The application was allowed, the order quashing the information was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Provincial Offences Court.