Pamela L. Hebner

The respondent sought leave to proceed with an urgent motion regarding access to the two younger children, alleging the applicant withheld access due to COVID-19 concerns.

The court, acting as a triage justice, determined the matter was presumptively urgent as it involved the alleged wrongful retention of children contrary to a final order.

The motion was allowed to proceed on the issue of access for the two younger children, and timelines for submissions were set.

The applicant sought leave to bring an urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home during the COVID-19 pandemic, citing health concerns due to his cardiac issues and the respondent's employment in long-term care facilities, as well as alleged violence and intentional coughing.

The court, applying the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession regarding urgent family law matters, determined that the request for exclusive possession related to the safety of a party met the definition of urgency.

Leave was granted for the applicant to proceed with the motion, with specific timelines for filing affidavits and scheduling a conference call hearing.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion seeking leave to bring a contempt motion and a police enforcement clause for the return of her two children, who were being withheld by the applicant father after March break.

The father cited concerns about the mother's and her spouse's employment at a detention centre during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court determined the matter met the definition of urgency, specifically involving the alleged wrongful retention of children, and allowed the motion to proceed, setting a schedule for the exchange of materials.

The applicant father sought an urgent motion for an order to restore an equal parenting time schedule for the child, Forest, after the respondent mother refused to return the child citing COVID-19 concerns.

The court determined that the matter met the definition of urgency, involving the well-being and alleged wrongful retention of a child, and allowed the motion to proceed, setting out a procedural schedule for the exchange of materials.

The respondent father sought leave to bring an urgent motion for access to his two children, whom he had not seen for several months, amidst a high-conflict separation.

The court, operating under COVID-19 emergency protocols, considered the definition of urgency.

While acknowledging the importance of the issues, the court declined to rule on the urgency of the motion directly.

Instead, it directed that an urgent case conference be scheduled to address the children's residence and access, with the possibility of ruling on urgency if a motion remained necessary after the conference.

The respondent brought an urgent motion to reduce spousal support due to a significant reduction in income following a medical diagnosis.

The court, operating under COVID-19 emergency protocols, determined that the matter met the definition of urgency as a 'dire issue regarding the parties’ financial circumstances' and allowed the motion to proceed.

The urgency determination was preliminary and without prejudice to the merits of the motion.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for contempt against the applicant mother for refusing access to their child, Tyler Dawn, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered the child's best interests and the safety concerns raised by the applicant regarding the respondent's adherence to COVID-19 protocols, including travel for access and the respondent's continued work outside his home.

Applying principles from Ribeiro v. Wright and Ruffolo v. David, the court found the applicant had justified reasons for suspending access.

The respondent's motion for contempt was dismissed, and his alternating weekend access was suspended for four weeks, with a provision for review.

The applicant mother sought an urgent motion for police assistance, makeup access, and a return to a week-about parenting regime after the respondent father refused to return their child, Riven.

The court, operating under COVID-19 emergency protocols, determined that the matter met the definition of urgency as it involved the well-being and alleged wrongful retention of a child.

The motion was allowed to proceed on notice to the respondent via email, with specific procedural directions for filing materials and a hearing by conference call, acknowledging the pandemic's impact on service and affidavit requirements.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking compliance with existing parenting orders after the applicant mother began withholding the children.

The court, operating under COVID-19 emergency protocols, assessed the motion's urgency.

It determined that the matter met the criteria for urgency, relating to the children's well-being and alleged wrongful retention, and allowed the motion to proceed, setting a schedule for materials and a hearing date.

The applicants brought an urgent motion for interim custody of a four-year-old child and an order prohibiting the respondent from removing the child from Essex County.

The court reviewed the request under the COVID-19 pandemic protocol for suspended court operations.

The triage judge found that the motion met the definition of an urgent family law event as it dealt with the well-being and potential wrongful removal of a child, and ordered that the motion proceed by conference call.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking sole custody and orders regarding telephone contact and supervised access due to the respondent father's alcohol use.

The court, hearing the motion in writing during the COVID-19 pandemic, declined to grant sole custody but ordered the father not to consume alcohol six hours prior to and during access.

The court also ordered that the mother and children be entitled to contact each other at any time the children are in the father's care, with the father required to provide telephone access.

The court found the father's commitment to the Children's Aid Society regarding alcohol consumption was insufficient and necessitated a formal court order to ensure child safety.

The applicant father brought an urgent interim motion to prevent the respondent mother from relocating with their eight-year-old child from Windsor to Edmonton.

The mother sought to move to pursue a policing career and live with her new partner.

Applying the test for interim mobility, the court found genuine issues for trial regarding the child's best interests and no compelling circumstances to justify an immediate move, particularly given the uncertainties of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court ordered the child to remain in Essex County pending an expedited trial.

This case concerns the assessment of damages for trespass after the defendants clear-cut a tree line and filled a drainage ditch on the plaintiffs' adjacent farmland.

Liability for trespass was previously established by summary judgment.

The court awarded damages for reasonable restoration costs, out-of-pocket expenses related to a survey and municipal drain contribution, and compensation for loss of amenities.

The plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages was denied, as the court found the defendants' conduct reckless but not sufficiently high-handed or malicious to warrant such an award.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing and timetable, while the defendants brought a cross-motion to dismiss the 2013 action for delay.

The plaintiffs' former counsel, who were suspended by the Law Society, caused significant delay and misled the plaintiffs.

The court found the plaintiffs had an acceptable explanation for the delay.

However, the court found the defendants would suffer non-compensable prejudice because the plaintiffs' former counsel lost the majority of the relevant documents, making complete documentary disclosure impossible.

The action was dismissed for delay.

The accused, a commercial truck driver, was charged with importing cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking after 30 kilograms of cocaine were found in his trailer at the Canada-US border.

The accused admitted to knowingly bringing the cocaine into Canada but raised the defences of duress and innocent possession.

The court rejected the defence of duress, finding that the accused did not reasonably believe the alleged threats, had safe avenues of escape, and acted for financial gain.

The court also rejected the defence of innocent possession, as the accused exercised control over the drugs for several days.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with multiple offences arising from a home invasion and robbery.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the recognition evidence of two victims who were familiar with the accused.

The court found the identification evidence unreliable due to discrepancies between the victims' trial testimony and their initial statements to police, as well as the brief time they had to observe the perpetrators.

Furthermore, an alibi witness raised a reasonable doubt as to the accused's whereabouts at the time of the robbery.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for prejudgment interest on a mortgage debt.

The parties had previously settled a construction lien dispute with a zero-interest mortgage due in 2008, which was paid off in installments as condominium units were sold, with the final balance paid after the plaintiff commenced this action in 2018.

The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to prejudgment interest on amounts paid before the statement of claim was issued, but was entitled to prejudgment interest on the balance outstanding at the time the claim was issued, from the 2008 due date until payment.

Following a summary judgment motion determining the applicable interest rate on a mortgage, the parties disputed the principal amount payable and costs.

The plaintiff claimed the principal was $350,000 based on a second mortgage commitment and relied on proprietary estoppel and part performance.

The defendants argued the principal was $337,755 as the full amount was not advanced.

The court rejected the plaintiff's equitable arguments, finding no detrimental reliance, and determined the principal payable was $339,840, which included the amount advanced plus an outstanding broker fee.

Costs were awarded to the successful defendants on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $24,877.93.

The plaintiffs, individual unit owners in a retirement condominium, brought a motion for summary judgment claiming the defendants acted oppressively.

The defendants, who owned the majority of the units, managed the condominium, and provided services, were not requiring their own tenants to pay the mandatory service fees that the plaintiffs were required to pay under the condominium declaration and bylaws.

The court found that the defendants' conduct was unfairly prejudicial and unfairly disregarded the plaintiffs' interests, as it violated their reasonable expectation that all occupants would be treated equally.

The court ordered that the declaration and bylaws be enforced, requiring all occupants to enter into the same services agreement, but declined to award damages or alter the board's composition.

The applicant sought compensation for unjust enrichment for her years of unpaid labour on her husband's family's dairy farm, as well as an equalization payment and retroactive child support.

The court found that the applicant had enriched both her husband and his mother through her extensive work on the farm and suffered a corresponding deprivation without juristic reason.

The court awarded the applicant $247,029.40 for unjust enrichment based on a value received approach, and a $60,000.00 equalization payment for her husband's equitable interest in the matrimonial home.

The claim for retroactive child support was dismissed.