Not present

The respondent brought an uncontested Motion to Change seeking to terminate his spousal support obligation and rescind over $216,000 in accumulated arrears.

The original 2002 order required support until three months after the applicant completed an educational program, but the respondent failed to pay voluntarily, leading to extensive garnishment by the Family Responsibility Office starting in 2012.

The court found that the respondent had significantly overpaid his total time-limited support obligation by mid-2017 and lacked the financial means to pay the remaining arrears.

The motion was granted, the arrears were rescinded in their entirety, and the ongoing support obligation was terminated.

The plaintiff brought an action against her former common-law partner for repayment of loans totalling $209,700 advanced over the course of a ten-year relationship, compensation under a cohabitation agreement, damages for loss of income incurred while providing attendant care after the defendant's motorcycle accident, and punitive/mental distress damages.

The defendant's defence was struck and the matter proceeded as an undefended trial.

The court found a pattern of intimate partner coercive control and financial exploitation, holding the claims were not statute-barred as the plaintiff reasonably relied on the defendant's repeated promises of repayment until he blocked all communications in February 2014.

The court awarded $118,700 for unpaid loans, $19,607.94 in interest, $19,000 under the cohabitation agreement, $40,000 for loss of income while caregiving, and $15,000 in mental distress damages, plus prejudgment interest and costs.

In this uncontested family law trial, the court granted the applicant sole decision-making authority and primary residence of the child, a final restraining order against the respondent, retroactive and prospective child support with imputed income, section 7 expense contributions, occupation rent, defamation damages, and restrictions on future proceedings.

The respondent's pleadings had been struck due to his pattern of non-compliance with court orders, abusive and threatening behaviour toward the applicant and child, and abuse of the court process.

The respondent engaged in domestic violence, property destruction, harassment through social media, and defamatory posts.

The court found the respondent's conduct reprehensible and relentless, warranting comprehensive protective orders and financial remedies.

The court considered whether the repeal of sections 15(a) and 16 of the Succession Law Reform Act by Bill 245 should apply retroactively to revive a will revoked by marriage prior to January 1, 2022.

The court held that the presumption against retroactivity was not rebutted, and the deceased's will, revoked by marriage in 2003, was not revived.

The deceased died intestate.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful application by Denise Pettipas to remove Deborah Johnston as power of attorney for their mother, Eileen Bessie Pettipas, and to appoint Denise as guardian.

Denise sought full indemnity costs.

The court applied principles from the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as specific considerations for estate and Substitute Decisions Act proceedings.

The court found Deborah's conduct less than ideal, including failure to disclose and placing Eileen in financial jeopardy, but no personal benefit.

The court ordered substantial indemnity costs of $25,341.50, payable by both Eileen and Deborah, with Eileen or her estate entitled to full reimbursement from Deborah, emphasizing public policy to protect vulnerable persons and not discourage well-meaning relatives.

The mother sought an urgent, without-notice restraining order against the step-father/father to protect herself and three children due to ongoing family violence and safety concerns.

The motion, initially under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA), was amended to include relief under the Children’s Law Reform Act (CLRA) and Family Law Act (FLA).

The court found reasonable grounds for fear for safety based on evidence of physical and verbal abuse.

A temporary restraining order was granted on a without-notice basis, with the mother directed to forthwith commence a CLRA application.

The court emphasized the paramount purpose of child protection in granting the order despite CYFSA's notice requirements.

Under Construction Incorporated (UCI) brought an ex parte motion seeking a declaration that O'Neil Davis's construction lien had expired, along with orders to discharge the lien and release funds posted to vacate it.

UCI's evidence, a lawyer's affidavit, was deemed insufficient by the Master due to lack of detail regarding efforts to confirm non-perfection, the status of UCI's own lien (for potential sheltering), and Davis's classification as a contractor or non-contractor, which affects lien expiry dates.

The Master emphasized the need for clear evidence for ex parte relief and offered UCI 14 days to file supplementary materials, failing which the motion would be dismissed without prejudice.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment in a status review application, seeking to place the child in the permanent custody of the paternal aunt with access to the mother.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the child to her care.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding custody, as the mother's history of housing instability, contentious relationships involving domestic violence, and mental health concerns demonstrated she could not safely parent the child.

Custody was granted to the aunt.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the mother's access, as the society's proposed access schedule was not consented to and required further factual determination.

The applicant lender sought a declaration that a prior mortgage registered on the respondents' property was a fraudulent sham designed to defeat its security interest.

The respondent lawyer, who acted for both the borrowers and the applicant, registered multiple mortgages on the property, including one to a corporation controlled by his sister, without disclosing them to the applicant.

The court found the prior mortgage was a sham unsupported by any advancement of funds and ordered the land register rectified to delete the fraudulent charge under the Land Titles Act.

The plaintiff, a 73-year-old administrative assistant with 19 years of service, brought a motion for default judgment against her former employer for wrongful dismissal, assault and battery, intentional infliction of mental suffering, aggravated damages, and punitive damages.

The plaintiff was dismissed after complaining about harassment and an alleged assault by a co-worker.

The court awarded 19 months' salary in lieu of notice, statutory benefits, $15,000 for vicarious liability for assault and battery, and $50,000 for aggravated damages due to the employer's neglect in addressing the complaints.

Claims for intentional infliction of mental suffering and punitive damages were dismissed as the high thresholds for these torts were not met.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages arising from the breach of a commercial sublease after being locked out of their pharmacy business.

The defendants were noted in default and the matter proceeded as an uncontested trial.

The court found the corporate sublandlord liable for breach of contract and one of its directors personally liable for inducing the breach.

Claims for fraud and mental distress were dismissed.

The plaintiffs were awarded $160,000 in damages and $25,000 in costs.

The applicant sought an annulment of a purported marriage, alleging duress and non-compliance with formal and essential validity requirements.

The respondent was served but did not file an answer.

The court found that the ceremony failed to meet formal validity requirements, as the parties were not in the presence of each other, the officiant, and witnesses, and mandatory declarations were not made.

Furthermore, the applicant did not freely consent to the marriage, having been subjected to cultural and familial pressure.

The court annulled the marriage on grounds of both formal and essential invalidity, as well as duress.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking temporary sole custody of the parties' child and a finding that Ontario has jurisdiction over custody and access.

The child had relocated from Florida to Ontario to live with the father.

The Florida court had recently ordered the child returned for a custody hearing.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice declined to make an ex parte order on jurisdiction or custody, finding that the respondent mother had not been properly served.

The court scheduled a motion on the jurisdiction issue and requested the Florida court adjourn its hearing in the interim.

The respondent, Anita Larwill, an Estate Trustee, brought a motion seeking an order to sell a residential property of the Estate due to the non-cooperation of another beneficiary.

The court determined that the requested relief could not be granted on this motion, as a previous order required an application for partition and sale as the proper procedural step.

However, the court granted Anita extensions of time to bring the required application for partition and sale and to distribute the remaining bequests and residue of the Estate.

The court noted the non-cooperation of one beneficiary and the potential for further adverse costs awards.