Patrick Joseph Kraemer

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' affidavits and motion record filed in support of a motion to set aside a default judgment.

The plaintiffs argued the affidavits should be struck because the defendants refused to attend in-person cross-examinations, citing COVID-19 health concerns.

The plaintiffs also argued the motion should be struck because it was brought by counsel retained by the former lawyer's insurer.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding the elderly defendants had a legitimate health concern justifying video conference examinations, and that counsel had standing to act on their behalf.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision finding that a $165,000 advance from his former parents-in-law to construct a 'granny suite' on the matrimonial property was a loan secured by a valid licence agreement and demand mortgage, rather than a gift or a lease.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the formal, lawyer-drafted agreement clearly indicated a loan and a licence, and that there was no basis in the agreement to discount the principal amount based on the duration of occupancy.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their application under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 for leave to require the respondents, who were attorneys for property for their parents, to pass their accounts.

The application judge found no direct allegation of misfeasance or wrongdoing and declined to exercise his discretion to grant leave.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle in the application judge's exercise of discretion, noting the lack of significant concerns regarding the management of the grantors' affairs, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application in contested estate proceedings challenging the validity of powers of attorney executed by their mother in 2013.

The appellants sought to invalidate the 2013 powers of attorney and reinstate 1995 powers of attorney.

The central issue was whether the testator had the requisite capacity to execute the 2013 powers of attorney.

The application judge found that the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of capacity with clear evidence on a balance of probabilities.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the application judge's assessment of the evidence or exercise of discretion.

The applicant's motion to amend its notice of application was previously dismissed.

The respondents sought costs of $12,979.13 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant argued for no costs or deferred costs, citing divided success, novel questions of law, and its impecuniosity due to expropriation.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments, finding the respondents were entirely successful and the applicant's conduct in bringing a duplicative and unnecessary motion warranted rebuke.

The court awarded the respondents costs fixed at $12,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed the allocation of $15,000 in engineering costs assessed against his property for a proposed improvement to a municipal drain.

The appellant had requested the improvement but later withdrew the request.

The municipality then instructed its engineer to prepare a report under section 40 of the Drainage Act stating the works were not required, resulting in additional costs.

The Tribunal found that the initial $9,000 in engineering work benefited all properties in the watershed and should be assessed against the drain under the existing by-law.

The Tribunal further held that the municipality erred in directing a section 40 report, and ordered the remaining $6,000 to be paid out of the municipality's general funds.

The applicant sought leave to amend its notice of application to add the interim Chief Building Official as a respondent and to appeal his alleged 'decision' that the applicant was not an 'aggrieved person' regarding a prior Unsafe Order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed amendments were not legally tenable.

The court held that the interim official's communication was not an appealable 'decision' under section 25(1) of the Building Code Act, as standing is a determination for the court, not the official.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion compelling the respondent to produce outstanding financial undertakings, answers under advisement, refused questions, and a business valuation.

The respondent argued for no costs due to mixed results.

The court found the applicant largely successful, as the ordered productions would likely fulfill her needs, and deemed the respondent's failure to provide financial production unreasonable.

The court awarded the applicant full costs of $14,138.74, payable within 30 days, finding her counsel's bill reasonable given the complexity and the respondent's unreasonable conduct.

The applicant brought a motion to compel the respondent to answer undertakings, questions taken under advisement, and refusals from his questioning.

The applicant also sought orders requiring the respondent to obtain an appraisal of the matrimonial home, a business valuation, and an income report.

The court ordered the respondent to fulfill the undertakings and answer the questions, noting his obligation to provide accurate valuations for his assets.

The respondent was ordered to produce the real estate opinion he relied on and to retain a Chartered Business Valuator at his own expense.

The request for an income report was dismissed as disproportionate at this stage.

Rodica Leu and Jonel Joca, married for 24 years, brought competing motions concerning the equalization of net family property following their divorce.

Key disputes involved the treatment of two loans from the husband's parents (one for the matrimonial home, one for a taxi licence) and the valuation of the husband's taxi licence.

The court granted the wife's motion for summary judgment, declining to rule on the enforceability of the matrimonial home loan but directing funds into court for future determination.

The taxi licence loan was assigned zero value due to the expiration of the limitation period.

The court accepted the expert's valuation of the taxi licence at $171,119 and dismissed the husband's arguments for notional disposition costs.

Ultimately, the husband was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $4,022.55 to the wife, along with $30,000 in costs.

The appellant appealed from orders made over ten years prior determining equalization, child support, and spousal support in a family law proceeding.

The appellant had failed to appear at trial in 2007 and at a subsequent motion to set aside the trial order in 2008.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence demonstrating the appellant's serious mental health issues, including PTSD and major depressive disorder, which rendered her incapable of attending the proceedings.

The court found that the appellant's absence was excused and that procedural fairness required setting aside the trial and motion orders.

The court ordered a new trial to determine the issues of equalization and support, set aside a garnishment order, and required the respondent to return garnished funds with interest.

The respondent moved to delist an appeal pending the outcome of outstanding matters in the Superior Court.

The Court of Appeal considered whether it should exercise its discretion to delist the appeal or allow it to proceed as scheduled.

The court determined that the appeal court was the appropriate forum to address the fundamental issue on appeal regarding whether an order made in the absence of the appellant should stand.

The motion was dismissed and the appeal was permitted to proceed as scheduled.

Costs were awarded to the responding party on a partial indemnity basis.

Following the dismissal of the Township's motion for leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision regarding a zoning by-law amendment, the successful responding party sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found no reprehensible conduct by the Township to justify an elevated scale and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

After considering the factors under Rule 57.01, including the principle of indemnity, complexity, and the overriding principle of reasonableness, the court fixed costs at $8,000 inclusive.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report for the McNain Municipal Drain Improvements under sections 48(1) and 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellant challenged the design of a drop structure on their property, the damage allowances, and the assessments levied against them, including a Section 24 Special Benefit assessment for additional engineering costs.

The Tribunal granted the appeals in part, ordering minor modifications to the drop structure design and reducing the Section 24 Special Benefit assessment from $60,000 to $30,000, finding that the improved design also benefited upstream lands.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's requests for damage allowances and changes to the Benefit/Outlet cost split.

The moving party municipality sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) that allowed the responding party's appeal and directed a zoning by-law amendment to permit an agricultural accessory building.

The municipality argued the OMB erred in law by failing to dismiss the appeal without a hearing, improperly invalidating official plan designations, and misapplying provincial policy statements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the OMB's decision was narrow, fact-specific, and did not raise questions of law of sufficient general or public importance to merit appellate review.

Blueridge Cedar Ltd. appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application to construct an agricultural accessory building on a landlocked property.

The property was accessible only by an unimproved right-of-way over steep and environmentally sensitive terrain.

The Hearing Officer found that the proposed development did not meet the requirement for frontage onto a public road under the municipal official plan, and therefore failed to accord with the development criteria of the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision was confirmed.

The appellant appealed two Review Decisions upholding Inspection Orders regarding fire safety measures at a seniors' home.

The parties reached a Terms of Resolution prior to the hearing, agreeing to classify the buildings as care occupancies.

The Fire Safety Commission accepted the resolution, upholding and amending the orders to require the installation of a fully addressable fire alarm system, an interim fire watch, and the distribution of fire safety educational materials.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce a final family law order for child support, section 7 expenses, and costs by garnishing the respondent's Retirement Life Income Fund (RLIF).

The court held that under section 66(4) of the Pension Benefits Act, the amount subject to execution for support orders is limited to 50% of the money payable to the respondent in a given year.

The court ordered the respondent to elect the maximum annual withdrawal from his RLIF and direct 50% of the net amount to the applicant until the arrears and $30,000 in fixed costs are satisfied.

The applicant's request for an advance order on future section 7 expenses was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal, the respondents sought their costs.

The applicant argued it should be shielded from costs as a public interest litigant, but the court found it failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet the test.

The court fixed costs at $15,000 for Preston Sand and $9,000 for the Township.

Preston Sand's request to have costs awarded personally against the individual members of the applicant corporation was dismissed, as it failed to prove the corporation was a 'man of straw' and failed to provide adequate notice to the non-parties.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding zoning by-law amendments for an aggregate operation.

The court applied the Enbridge Gas test and found that while the applicant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the explanation of inadvertence for the delay was insufficient.

Furthermore, the proposed appeal challenged the Board's factual weighing of prejudice in excluding expert testimony, which did not raise a meritorious question of law.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.