Not appearing

The plaintiff, a United Kingdom manufacturer, brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant for unpaid invoices totalling £65,218.67 for custom-manufactured equipment.

The defendant was noted in default for failing to defend the proceeding.

Applying the test from Elekta Ltd. v. Rodkin, the court found liability established based on deemed admissions in the statement of claim and supporting affidavit evidence.

Default judgment was granted for the full amount with pre-judgment interest at 5.3% under the Courts of Justice Act and costs of $2,527.00.

The applicant, Joe Hamrak, sought directions regarding the validity of two wills made by the deceased, John Joseph Hamrak.

The court found that the 2022 Will was valid and the 2023 Will invalid due to the testator's lack of testamentary capacity at the time of the latter's execution.

The court also addressed the loss of the original 2022 Will, the improper transfer of funds, and the allocation of costs from the estate.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) applied for an order compelling Jason Snelgrove to reimburse funds allegedly misappropriated from his mother, Loreen Snelgrove, a vulnerable senior with dementia, while he acted as her attorney for property.

The court found that Jason Snelgrove breached his fiduciary duty by failing to account for expenditures and using funds contrary to his mother's interests.

Despite Jason's claims of ignorance regarding record-keeping and his mother's capacity to instruct him, the court ordered him to repay a significant portion of the funds.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision on three issues: the inclusion of a "Maher payment" (110 gold coins) in the net family property (NFP) calculation, the failure to order an unequal division of NFP due to short marriage duration and non-disclosure of assets, and the method of payment for the gold coins.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, affirming the trial judge's decision.

It held that the Maher payment was correctly included, consistent with prior jurisprudence, and found no error in the decision not to order an unequal division given the evidence.

The court also upheld the trial judge's practical approach of deducting the Canadian equivalent of the gold coins from the equalization payment.

A procedural fairness argument was also rejected.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend its statement of claim to add a new defendant, Wasaya Petroleum LP, to its action, and to compel answers to questions refused at discovery.

The proposed defendant and existing defendant objected on the basis that the two-year limitation period had expired.

The court found that the plaintiff had sufficient information to discover the claim against the proposed defendant several years prior, based on band council resolutions and pleadings in a related action.

The motion to amend was dismissed as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and the motion to compel answers was dismissed as irrelevant.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend its statement of claim to add a new defendant, Wasaya Petroleum LP, to its action, and to compel answers to questions refused at discovery.

The proposed defendant and existing defendant objected on the basis that the two-year limitation period had expired.

The court found that the plaintiff had sufficient information to discover the claim against the proposed defendant several years prior, based on band council resolutions and pleadings in a related action.

The motion to amend was dismissed as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and the motion to compel answers was dismissed as irrelevant.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment seeking approximately $936,000 in damages for alleged breach of contract.

The court raised several concerns, including a significant discrepancy between the amount claimed in the motion and the estimated damages in the statement of claim, the lack of a clear contractual basis for the claimed lost opportunities, and the plaintiff's failure to properly prove damages by not accounting for costs.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to re-file with further and better evidence.

The plaintiff, represented by its sole officer and director, brought a voluminous motion without notice and before the commencement of a proceeding, seeking various forms of relief regarding a real estate property.

The court noted that a prior order precluded the plaintiff from bringing any further actions or applications concerning the subject property without leave of a judge.

The plaintiff had not obtained such leave and instead sought to set aside the prior order as part of the substantive relief in the current motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that permitting it to proceed would condone a violation of the prior order and an abuse of process.

The applicant maternal grandmother moved to amend a previous costs order of $85,000 against the respondent father, seeking to apportion 50 percent of the costs to child support.

The father had declared bankruptcy, and costs attributed to child support survive bankruptcy.

The court found it had jurisdiction to apportion costs retroactively.

However, because child support was resolved by consent before trial and was not a contested issue, the court declined to apportion 50 percent as requested.

Instead, considering the time spent and complexity, the court apportioned 10 percent of the costs to child support.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend a previous civil judgment to replace the parties' initials with their full names.

The underlying trial involved the defendants making a false report about the plaintiff to a children's aid society.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the mandatory publication ban under section 45(8) of the Child and Family Services Act (now section 87 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act) applies to civil judgments to protect the privacy of children involved in child protection investigations, even if no formal child protection proceeding was commenced.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for directions to determine the order of examinations for discovery.

The defendant insurer had served an affidavit of documents that was two years out of date and omitted the relevant insurance policy, claiming priority to examine the plaintiffs first.

The court found the insurer's affidavit of documents was deficient and a nullity, meaning it had not preserved its right to examine first.

The court ordered the insurer to serve a further and better affidavit of documents, struck the insurer's notice of examination and certificate of non-attendance, and ordered that the plaintiffs were entitled to examine the defendants first.

The plaintiff, assignee of a debt for commercial fuel deliveries, brought a motion for summary judgment against a father and son who previously operated a business as a general partnership.

The partnership had been dissolved by an arbitrator's order, but neither partner notified the fuel supplier.

The son continued to order fuel while occupying the business premises.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that under s. 36(1) of the Partnerships Act, the failure to notify the creditor meant both former partners remained jointly and severally liable for the debt incurred.

The assignment of the debt was also found to be valid.

A case management conference was held which the plaintiff, Nadire Atas, failed to attend.

The plaintiff had previously been ordered to make Chavali requests to advance her litigation against Sutton Group and related parties but failed to do so.

The court found that the plaintiff had abandoned her litigation by conduct and breached multiple court orders.

Consequently, the court dismissed all claims against the defendants, awarding costs to one self-represented defendant who participated in the case management process.

A case management conference was held regarding the respondent's failure to follow court orders in connection with her pending appeal of a contempt judgment.

The respondent did not attend the conference.

The court found that the respondent breached a previous order directing her to inquire about the status of transcripts required for her appeal and to provide the correspondence to the court.

The court ordered the respondent to comply with the previous directions by November 15, 2019, and to explain her non-compliance, warning that failure to do so could result in further contempt proceedings.

At a status hearing, the court considered whether to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for delay under Rule 48.14(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action, which involved a shareholder dispute, had been commenced in 2012 and was inextricably linked to a separate application to wind up the corporations.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, having made a strategic decision to await the outcome of the application before proceeding with the action.

Finding that the defendants would suffer prejudice if the action proceeded, the court dismissed the action for delay.

The Children's Aid Society of Hamilton brought a summary judgment motion within a status review application concerning three children.

The Society sought extended society care for the eldest child and custody for the two younger children with their maternal grandparents.

The mother opposed, requesting the children's return to her care.

The court found the children continued to be in need of protection due to the mother's history of physical harm, failure to engage with recommended services, and inconsistent access.

The motion was deemed suitable for summary judgment.

The court granted extended society care for the eldest child and custody of the two younger children to the maternal grandparents, with specified access arrangements for all parties.

The Children's Aid Society of Niagara brought a summary judgment motion within a status review application for twin children, G.D. and J.D., seeking a final order for extended care and custody without access for the purpose of adoption.

The mother, T.A., failed to file responding material or attend the motion, and the father, J.D., was in default.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the mother's lack of progress in addressing protection concerns and her failure to exercise access.

The court determined that it was in the children's best interests to grant the Society's request for permanency through adoption, permanently severing parental ties.

The Trustees of the Ginoogaming First Nation Timber Claim Settlement Trust sought the court's opinion, advice, and direction regarding the interpretation of Article 12.5 of the Trust Agreement.

Specifically, they asked whether per capita payments should be made to individuals who would have been entitled to band membership on the voting day (December 15, 2001) but for discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act, and if so, whether the 20-year time limit for claiming payment applied.

The court, applying principles of trust and contractual interpretation, found that the plain meaning of the Trust Agreement limited payments to those whose names appeared on the Band List on the specified voting day.

It concluded that subsequent amendments to the Indian Act, which rectified historical discrimination, did not retroactively confer membership rights for the purpose of this specific trust distribution.

Consequently, the payments were not extended to individuals who became members after December 15, 2001.

The second question regarding the time limit was not addressed.

The applicant sought an annulment of her marriage based on non-consummation and alleged immigration fraud by the respondent.

The court dismissed the application, finding that non-consummation due to wilful refusal is insufficient for annulment, as it requires evidence of permanent physical or psychological impotency.

Furthermore, the court reiterated that immigration fraud cannot be a valid ground for annulment under Ontario law, citing established precedent.

The applicant was granted leave to amend her application to seek a divorce.

The applicant mother sought child support and spousal support from the respondent father for their 19-year-old child.

The father, residing in the United Arab Emirates, was noted in default.

The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to order spousal support as the parties had been divorced in 2010.

The court imputed the father's annual income at $155,000 based on available evidence and his career progression.

The court ordered retroactive child support from January 1, 2012, finding the father's conduct in ceasing payments after November 2010 despite multiple requests was egregiously blameworthy.

The court calculated total arrears at $86,880 and ordered ongoing monthly support of $1,335, plus the father's proportionate share of post-secondary expenses and costs of $3,000.