Paul Amey

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary primary residence of the parties' eight-year-old son and expanded access to their 16-month-old daughter.

In his affidavit, the father attached nude photographs and graphic text messages of the respondent mother, obtained without authorization from her discarded cell phone.

The court struck the offensive materials from the record, finding them completely irrelevant to the parenting issues and a malicious attempt to humiliate the mother.

The court declined to make major changes to the timesharing arrangement pending an Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation, maintaining the children's primary residence with the mother while slightly expanding the father's access.

The moving party, acting under a s. 38 BIA order in the bankruptcy of a general contractor, moved for a final order that a release executed by the bankrupt's trustee did not bar a claim for damages against the respondent municipality.

The moving party also sought an order nunc pro tunc for leave to amend the bankrupt's statement of defence to add a crossclaim against the municipality.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the action had already been dismissed following a settlement, and a crossclaim could not stand alone under the Construction Lien Act.

Furthermore, the comprehensive release executed by the trustee barred the crossclaim, and the court declined to exercise its discretion under s. 37 of the BIA to reverse the trustee's decision.

A long‑serving dealership manager brought a wrongful dismissal action after his employer terminated him for alleged alcohol use at work and for allegedly driving company vehicles while impaired.

The employer relied on complaints from staff and a purported zero‑tolerance policy on alcohol consumption during work hours.

The court found the allegations vague, unsubstantiated, and largely unsupported by the evidence, and determined that the alleged policy had never been clearly communicated or incorporated into the employment contract.

Applying the contextual approach to just cause from McKinley and proportionality principles from Dowling, the court held that the conduct did not justify summary dismissal and that progressive discipline would have been appropriate.

The plaintiff was awarded damages based on five months’ reasonable notice.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to add its subcontractor as a defendant to an existing construction dispute after a tunnel collapse caused additional project costs.

The proposed defendant argued the claim was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of a potential negligence claim when the tunnel collapse occurred and was therefore required to act with due diligence within two years of that event.

Discoverability did not extend the limitation period merely because the plaintiff later learned of the defendant’s alleged negligence through a statement of defence.

The motion to add the proposed defendant was denied as statute‑barred.

Following a prior decision granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs in the amount of $95,576.53 with prejudgment interest and no stay of execution, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs sought costs of approximately $38,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, arguing entitlement to elevated costs under Rule 49 due to settlement offers.

The court found Rule 49.10 inapplicable because no settlement offers remained open for acceptance at the time of the summary judgment motion.

Applying the general presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs, the court held the plaintiffs were entitled to partial indemnity costs.

After considering overlap between work on the claim and counterclaim, the court fixed costs at $31,000 inclusive of disbursements plus HST.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for $95,576.53 based on a personal indemnity agreement executed during the sale of a cosmetic clinic.

The defendant argued the indemnity was unenforceable because the underlying equipment leases were never formally assigned.

The court found the defendant waived the assignment requirement by completing the transaction and using the equipment for two years.

Summary judgment was granted, and the defendant's request for a stay pending her counterclaims was denied.

The applicant brought a motion to change an existing family court order governing parenting time.

The parties resolved most issues of access through minutes of settlement but disputed whether the respondent should have mid‑week access during the school year.

After hearing submissions, the court ordered that the respondent have Tuesday after‑school access until 8 p.m., with responsibility for school pickup and return to the applicant’s residence.

The court also required advance notice by text message if the respondent could not exercise the access.

Costs submissions were directed to be filed following the decision.

The applicant father sought shared custody of his biological daughter, access to his step-daughter, and a determination of child support and equalization.

The court granted sole custody of both children to the respondent mother, maintaining the status quo for access.

The court imputed an income of $36,000 to the applicant due to his failure to disclose financial information.

The court ordered the applicant to pay child support for both children, apportioning the step-parent support obligation based on the biological father's higher income.

For equalization, the court discounted a $38,500 mortgage debt owed by the applicant to his father to nil, finding it was unlikely to ever be repaid, resulting in a $75,000 equalization payment owed to the respondent.

The plaintiff corporation sought an adjournment of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action for failure to comply with interlocutory orders requiring payment of costs and posting of security for costs.

The plaintiff also requested extensions of time and a reduction of the security amount.

The court considered Rules 56.06, 56.07, 57.03, and 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the balance between enforcing court orders and allowing disputes to be decided on their merits.

Although the plaintiff had failed to comply with prior orders and had only partially raised the required funds, the court found limited evidence supporting a short final extension.

The court granted a final extension of time to post security for costs and pay outstanding costs but refused to reduce the security amount.