Pamela L. Hebner

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.

Sentencing following convictions for nine sexual offences committed by a fire chief against four male victims, including youth co-op students and a workplace subordinate.

The court rejected the offender's double jeopardy argument, holding that sexual assault and sexual exploitation each contain distinguishing elements and therefore both convictions could stand where they arose from the same factual nexus.

Applying the principles of denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, consecutive sentencing for child sexual offences, and totality, the court imposed a global penitentiary sentence of five years.

The court granted 7.5 days' credit for pre-sentence custody, denied further credit for bail conditions, and made DNA and lifetime sex offender registry orders.

The applicant sought partition and sale of a jointly owned property and equal division of net proceeds.

The respondent counterclaimed for transfer of the property into her name alone based on unjust enrichment and constructive/resulting trust, citing her significant financial contributions to renovations.

The court found no unjust enrichment regarding the property, as the applicant's equity did not increase, and the parties' reasonable expectation was 50/50 ownership.

However, the court found unjust enrichment regarding a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, ordering the applicant to pay the respondent 85% of its separation value.

The court ordered the property to be sold with net proceeds divided equally, subject to an adjustment payment from the applicant to the respondent for the motorcycle and shared debts.

The applicant mother brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the respondent father's motion to change existing custody and access orders.

The father alleged material changes in circumstances, including parental alienation, the mother's refusal to continue counselling for the children, and non-compliance with access orders.

The court found no direct evidence of alienating behaviour, no evidence that counselling was still required or recommended by professionals, and that the alleged access infractions were not sufficiently significant to constitute a material change in circumstances affecting the children's best interests.

The applicant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the respondent's motion to change was dismissed.

The applicant wife sought an order extending the limitation period for an equalization claim under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.

F.3, specifically regarding the respondent husband's pension.

The court granted the extension, finding that the three conditions under s. 2(8) were met: apparent grounds for relief existed, the delay was incurred in good faith despite the applicant's mental health issues and difficulties obtaining legal aid and filing documents, and the respondent did not suffer substantial prejudice beyond the mere prospect of an equalization payment.

The accused faced a 17-count indictment alleging sexual offences against eight complainants arising from his roles as a fire chief and former teacher.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework, the law of consent and mistaken belief in consent, and the statutory requirements for sexual exploitation, including whether the accused occupied positions of trust, authority, or dependency toward younger complainants.

The court admitted similar fact evidence among four younger complainants and relied on the improbability of coincidence in their accounts of baths or hot tubs, massages, and genital touching.

The accused was convicted on counts involving certain adult and younger complainants where lack of consent or the exploitative relationship was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquitted on other counts where credibility conflicts or reasonable doubt remained.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2005 child support order, seeking to terminate support for his two adult children and erase arrears.

The respondent mother brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the motion to change, fix arrears, and order ongoing support.

The court found the father was intentionally underemployed and imputed income to him.

The court ordered support for one child to terminate after she completed her undergraduate degree, but found the other child, who is permanently disabled, remains a child of the marriage indefinitely.

The father was ordered to pay significant arrears and ongoing support.

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 plaintiff mortgagee sought summary judgment for possession of a property and monetary judgment against the mortgagor and guarantors, claiming interest at 21% and relying on a mortgage renewal agreement.

The defendants disputed the interest rate, asserting 12%, and challenged the enforceability of the renewal agreement.

The court found the 21% interest clause violated section 8 of the Interest Act, ruling the interest rate to be 12%.

The court also found the renewal agreement unenforceable due to the plaintiff's knowledge that a co-owner's signature was required, thus the indoor management rule did not apply.

Additionally, a construction lien registered by one defendant was declared expired and vacated.

The plaintiff City of Windsor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant engineering company, RC Spencer Associates Inc., seeking 50% of damages paid to homeowners for sewage backups.

The City alleged Spencer provided incomprehensible drawings for a sewer separation project, leading to the removal of an essential overflow mechanism.

The court ordered a mini-trial to hear oral evidence regarding the clarity of the drawings.

The court found both parties negligent, with Spencer's drawings lacking sufficient detail for the contractor and inspector to understand the need to maintain the overflow, and the City being negligent as the final reviewer and inspector.

The court apportioned liability equally, ordering Spencer to pay 50% of the damages.

On a Crown application in a multi-complainant sexual offence prosecution, the court considered whether count-to-count similar fact evidence was admissible.

Applying the similar fact framework, the court held the evidence of four complainants who were youths associated with the fire department was sufficiently specific and probative, with no air of reality to collusion, to outweigh prejudicial effect in a judge-alone trial.

The court found the allegations of three adult firefighter complainants were less similar and were affected by a live concern about collusion between at least two of them, undermining probative value.

The application was therefore granted only for the youth complainant group and otherwise dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for a declaration that the respondent was in contempt of an Ontario court order that recognized a Polish court order.

The underlying order required the respondent to provide the applicant with access to all books and documents of their jointly owned, now-liquidated business.

The court found that the respondent intentionally breached the clear and unequivocal order by failing to provide access to documents from the period the business was in operation.

The respondent was found in contempt and ordered to provide a complete list of documents and access to them, with the motion adjourned to allow him to purge his contempt.

The accused, Michael Baylis, faced a six-count indictment for various assaults, threats, and obstruction of justice stemming from two separate gatherings at a trailer park.

The court heard evidence from multiple witnesses, including the accused, and considered the reliability of intoxicated and "disreputable" Crown witnesses, applying the Vetrovec and W.(D.) analyses.

Baylis was found not guilty of assault on William Joel Jeffs (Count 1), uttering threats (Count 3), assault on Kenneth Bristol (Count 4), and obstruction of justice (Count 5).

He was found guilty of aggravated assault on Anthony Elias (Count 2) and assault with a weapon on Kenneth Bristol (Count 6).

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendant, Luis Chibante, to answer refusals given during his examination for discovery.

The refusals concerned the use of funds borrowed from Mastronardi Produce and Luis Chibante's business ventures with individuals associated with Mastronardi Produce.

The court, applying principles of discovery scope and proportionality, ordered the defendant to provide a solicitor's trust statement confirming legal fees paid from the borrowed funds and to answer specific questions about his business interests with Mastronardi Produce associates, subject to confidentiality controls.

The respondents moved for an order to try two proceedings (CV-16-24195 and CV-18-26529) together.

The first action concerned the estate trustee's administration of an estate and passing of accounts, including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty.

The second action, commenced by the estate trustee, sought to collect a payment on a promissory note related to a share purchase agreement, with the respondent in the first action counterclaiming undue influence and economic duress.

The court applied Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the balance of convenience test.

It found that while there was a minor common issue (value of estate's shares), the relief claimed did not arise from the same transactions, and the actions were at different stages of litigation with different complexities.

The motion to consolidate or hear the actions together was dismissed.

The respondent brought a motion for a determination of the appropriate quantum of temporary spousal support.

The court was tasked with determining the applicant's income for support purposes, considering personal expenses paid by the business and non-arm's length wages.

The court averaged expert calculations to arrive at an income of $634,733 for the applicant and ordered temporary spousal support of $20,000 per month, retroactive to December 1, 2017.

The decision emphasized "rough justice" for interim orders and the application of Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines despite the payor's income exceeding the ceiling.

Luis Chibante brought a motion to strike three paragraphs from Lynne Chibante's statement of claim, alleging abuse of process, prejudice, delay, and no reasonable cause of action.

The paragraphs concerned allegations of wrongdoing related to Golden Fresh in Ohio and accessing private emails, which were deemed outside the scope of the agreed-upon trial of issues concerning Golden Acre in Ontario.

The court granted the motion, finding the paragraphs scandalous, vexatious, irrelevant, and likely to prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action.

The defendants moved to transfer the action from Woodstock to Windsor, citing convenience and judicial resources.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing its chosen venue was reasonable and Windsor was not significantly better, and cross-moved for consolidation with three Small Claims Court actions if the transfer was granted.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that Woodstock was a reasonable venue and Windsor was not "significantly better" based on a holistic application of Rule 13.1.02 factors.

Consequently, the plaintiff's cross-motion for consolidation was not addressed.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff, in the cause.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment against the defendants, specifically Toronto Dominion Bank (TD Bank), seeking recovery for amounts paid on forged cheques by a former bookkeeper.

The motion proceeded to a mini-trial on the issue of discoverability under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the plaintiffs' claim was not statute-barred, as the fraud was skillfully concealed by the bookkeeper, and the plaintiff, a machinist without financial expertise, acted diligently once alerted to the possibility of fraud.

The court applied the "reasonable person" standard, considering the plaintiff's abilities and circumstances, and concluded that the lack of sophisticated internal controls did not render the plaintiff unreasonable.

Partial summary judgment was granted against TD Bank for the cheque fraud amounts.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment against Stewart Title Guaranty Company for $223,555.74, alleging coverage under their title insurance policy due to structural defects in their home that violated the Ontario Building Code and rendered the property unmarketable.

The court found that while the property's title was unmarketable under Covered Title Risk (CTR) clause 19, coverage was excluded by exclusion clause 7, which pertained to structures not built in accordance with applicable building codes.

The court also found no coverage under CTR clause 20, as there was no evidence of a governmental authority forcing remedial work.

Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against Stewart Title was dismissed.