O. Vinton

The moving party sought the release of a transcript of a case conference held in the context of family law proceedings, which led to a motion for child support.

The motion was unopposed.

The court ordered the release of the transcript and approved the parties' proposed timetable for serving and filing materials on the leave to appeal motion.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting her from a residential unit for demolition purposes.

The tenant argued the Board erred by extending the time for the landlord to pay the required statutory compensation after the initial cheque bounced due to the tenant's delay in cashing it, and that she was denied natural justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly exercised its discretion under s. 190(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act to extend the time requirement, and that the tenant was afforded procedural fairness.

The applicant mother and respondent father each brought motions following a case conference.

The respondent sought to set aside a procedural order granting the applicant leave to bring substantive motions, arguing inadequate notice.

The applicant sought interim child support, spousal support, and contribution to orthodontic expenses.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding he had adequate notice of the case conference and the court had jurisdiction to make procedural orders.

The court granted the applicant's motion, ordering the respondent to pay interim Table child support of $1,769 per month, 70% of orthodontic expenses, and interim spousal support of $2,500 per month, which was adjusted downwards to account for the respondent's ongoing payment of the joint mortgage.

The defendants moved for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(e), arguing the plaintiff's claim for a one-half interest in their property based on proprietary estoppel was frivolous and vexatious.

The plaintiff cross-moved to strike the defendants' affidavits and opposed their motion to amend their pleadings to add a limitations defence.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's cross-motions, allowed the defendants to amend their pleadings, and granted the motion for security for costs, finding the plaintiff's claim lacked practical merit and her conduct in the litigation was vexatious.

The plaintiff mortgage lender brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement signed by the self-represented defendant.

The defendant argued the agreement was signed under duress and that he intended to preserve his counterclaim.

The Master found the settlement valid and binding, noting the defendant's failure to include any reservation of rights in the clear written agreement.

The Master ordered that the plaintiff could proceed with the sale of the mortgaged property, but directed that the proceeds be held in escrow until the defendant's counterclaim, which requires leave to proceed due to his status as a vexatious litigant, is resolved.