No one appearing

The applicant sought to confirm a provisional order from the Northwest Territories that would terminate child support for his two younger children.

The respondent mother opposed the termination, providing evidence at the confirmation hearing that both children were pursuing post-secondary education and remained dependent.

The court found the children were still children of the marriage and refused to confirm the portions of the provisional order that terminated their support, instead ordering continued monthly child support.

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant sought sole custody, child and spousal support, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent did not appear.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, imputed the respondent's income based on a past tax assessment, and ordered child and spousal support.

The court declined to order exclusive possession of the matrimonial home but ordered its sale, dispensing with the respondent's consent.

The applicant's request for an unequal division of net family property was dismissed due to insufficient evidence, with leave to file further evidence.

The respondents, Trillium Gift of Life Network and University Health Network, brought motions to dismiss and transfer applications challenging the constitutionality of liver transplant waitlist criteria for patients with alcohol-related liver disease.

UHN moved to dismiss the application against it, arguing the Charter did not apply to its clinical decisions.

Trillium moved to transfer the application to the Divisional Court, arguing it involved the review of a statutory power.

The Superior Court dismissed both motions, finding it was not plain and obvious that the Charter did not apply to UHN's adoption of the criteria, and affirming the Superior Court's inherent jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies without bifurcating the proceedings.

The respondents, Trillium Gift of Life Network and University Health Network, brought motions to dismiss and transfer applications challenging the constitutionality of liver transplant waitlist criteria for patients with alcohol-related liver disease.

UHN moved to dismiss the application against it, arguing the Charter did not apply to its clinical decisions.

Trillium moved to transfer the application to the Divisional Court, arguing it involved the review of a statutory power.

The Superior Court dismissed both motions, finding it was not plain and obvious that the Charter did not apply to UHN's adoption of the criteria, and affirming the Superior Court's inherent jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies without bifurcating the proceedings.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant general contractor for unpaid work on a construction project.

The general contractor's contract with the owner had been terminated due to delays, and the general contractor alleged the subcontractor contributed to those delays.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring trial because granting partial summary judgment risked inconsistent findings with the main action between the owner and the general contractor, where the subcontractor's role in the delay was a live issue.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment on a status review application, seeking an extended society care order for a two-year-old child with a plan for adoption.

The mother, who struggled with addiction and mental health issues, did not respond to the motion.

The court granted the extended society care order, finding no genuine issue for trial.

The court also determined that the order could not be silent on access, as requested by the Society, and instead explicitly ordered no access for either parent, while leaving open the issue of the child's access to her sibling and maternal grandparents.

The applicant brought a motion to note the corporate respondent in default and to strike the individual respondent's pleadings for failing to comply with multiple disclosure orders and failing to participate in the proceedings.

The court noted the corporate respondent in default as it had not filed an Answer.

The court struck the individual respondent's pleadings, finding his non-compliance to be willful and egregious, but permitted him to participate in the default hearing solely on the issues of custody and access in the best interests of the child.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to commence an action using only his initials, alleging historical sexual abuse by a former teacher.

The plaintiff filed evidence from his treating psychotherapist indicating that using his real name would cause unnecessary harm and exacerbate his symptoms.

The defendants did not oppose the motion.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, the court granted the motion, finding that the salutary effects of the order outweighed the deleterious effects on the open court principle.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against her former employers arising from sexual harassment and an incident where the individual defendant attempted to put a date rape drug in her coffee.

The individual defendant had previously pled guilty to a criminal charge related to the drugging attempt and received an 18-month conditional sentence.

The court awarded the plaintiff $50,000 in general damages and $50,000 for loss of competitive advantage due to ongoing psychological distress.

The claim for punitive damages was dismissed because the criminal sentence was deemed sufficient for retribution and deterrence.

The plaintiff was employed by the corporate defendant and was in a common-law relationship with its sole director.

Following their separation, the director terminated the plaintiff's employment, withheld her wages, and transferred the corporation's assets to a related company to render it judgment-proof.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment.

The court pierced the corporate veil under the Business Corporations Act, holding the director personally liable for the oppressive conduct.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for unpaid wages, 12 months' pay in lieu of notice, and aggravated damages for the bad faith manner of dismissal.

In a child protection proceeding, the mother's lawyer brought a motion to be removed from the record.

The court granted the motion but noted that the Family Law Rules require the filing of confidential, potentially prejudicial evidence that is not shared with other parties and is subsequently removed from the court file.

The court held that a judge who receives such secret information during a solicitor-removal motion should be presumed precluded from presiding over the eventual trial to avoid any reasonable apprehension of bias or procedural unfairness.

Consequently, the judge recused himself from the upcoming trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment seeking $1,350,000.00.

The court noted that the plaintiff was attempting to re-litigate issues that had already been decided in previous proceedings, including an action against the defendant's former lawyers.

Finding the action to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, the court dismissed both the motion and the underlying action.

The respondent father brought an urgent, ex parte motion to vary the terms of access to his 2.5-year-old daughter.

He had recently been pulled over by police in British Columbia while driving with the child unsecured in a car seat, resulting in a 90-day license suspension for suspected impaired driving.

Following the incident, he signed a consent temporarily suspending his access, but later sought to reinstate it without notice to the applicant mother.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no urgency and noting the father's lack of a treatment plan or CAS-approved safety plan.

The court ordered temporary suspension of regular access in accordance with the prior consent, allowing only electronic access.

The applicant, a minor by his litigation guardian, sought court approval for a $1,450,000 accident benefits settlement with Intact Insurance, a structured settlement, and solicitor-client fees of $293,800, along with a contingency fee agreement.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable but found the contingency fee agreement non-compliant with regulations and reduced the solicitor-client fees to $145,000 plus HST, citing numerous errors and inconsistencies in counsel's filings and time dockets.

The Applicant sought various orders including vesting of the matrimonial home, child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, life insurance, and a divorce.

The Respondent's pleadings were struck due to non-compliance with financial disclosure orders, and the matter proceeded as an uncontested trial.

The court imputed income to the Respondent and granted most of the Applicant's requests for support, equalization, and property transfer, but declined to compel the Respondent to facilitate the children's Romanian passports.

Costs were awarded to the Applicant on a full indemnity basis due to the Respondent's unreasonable conduct.

The plaintiff brought an undefended action against his separated spouse for fraud, alleging she forged his signature on credit cards, mortgages, and insurance documents.

The court held a default hearing and accepted the plaintiff's uncontradicted evidence regarding debts incurred in his name and the unauthorized cashing out of life insurance policies.

The court awarded the plaintiff $180,455.79 in damages, including $5,000 in general damages for mental anguish and damage to his credit rating, plus substantial indemnity costs due to the defendant's deceitful conduct.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants for unpaid plumbing materials.

The court granted judgment for breach of contract and on a personal guarantee in the amount of $96,569.22, as the facts in the statement of claim were deemed admitted.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act, finding that the statement of claim lacked sufficient material facts to establish that the materials were supplied to a known improvement or that the defendants had misappropriated trust funds.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court decision ordering them to pay $1,000 plus costs, and brought a motion for leave to have the application heard by the Superior Court of Justice due to urgency.

The court granted leave based on the applicants' significant health issues.

However, the court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that it was an inappropriate attempt to circumvent the statutory prohibition on appealing Small Claims Court decisions under $2,500.

The applicant, a homeowner, sought to evict the respondent, a long-term tenant, from a shared residence and recover rent arrears.

The Landlord and Tenant Board had declined jurisdiction because the parties shared a bathroom and kitchen, making the Commercial Tenancies Act applicable instead of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The respondent failed to appear in court despite notice.

The court found the respondent in breach of an implied lease due to non-payment of rent and failure to maintain the property.

The court granted orders for lease termination, a writ of possession, and payment of rent arrears, but dismissed the request for injunctive relief without prejudice due to insufficient evidence.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants, who own an adjoining townhouse.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' unauthorized demolition and construction work caused significant structural and water damage to the plaintiffs' property.

The court found the defendants liable in both negligence and private nuisance, as they breached their duty of care and substantially interfered with the plaintiffs' use of their property.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $25,435 in property damages, $5,000 in punitive damages for the defendants' high-handed conduct, and $10,000 in costs.