Paul B. Kane

A Quebec law firm sought a declaration in Ontario recognizing and enforcing a Quebec judgment for unpaid legal fees under rule 14.05(3)(h) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that a foreign judgment from a non‑reciprocating jurisdiction creates a debt based on an implied promise to pay, which must be enforced through a new action rather than an application for declaratory relief.

The court rejected prior authorities suggesting that an application was available under rule 14.05(3)(h).

Because the amount claimed fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, the proper forum for any enforcement proceeding was that court rather than the Superior Court of Justice.

The application was therefore dismissed.

The applicant father brought an application for custody or access to his seven-year-old son, whom he had not seen in four years.

The father brought a motion to enforce an order for the Office of the Children's Lawyer to prepare a report, while the respondent mother brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the father's application.

The court found that the child had significant special needs, including ADHD and oppositional defiant disorder, requiring a parent with excellent self-regulation.

Given the father's history of criminal activity, substance abuse, and ADHD, and his failure to provide evidence of his capacity to meet the child's needs, the court granted the mother's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the father's motion.

The parties proceeded to trial on issues of custody, access, child support arrears, and division of ODSP payments.

The parties agreed to joint custody and a shared parenting schedule during the trial, which the court ordered to apply to all three children, denying the respondent's request to exempt the eldest child.

The court dismissed the respondent's claim for child support arrears due to his lack of timely claim and insufficient income differential.

The respondent was ordered to repay the applicant's income tax refund, and the court requested that ODSP payments be divided equally between the parents.

In a child protection proceeding seeking Crown wardship, both parents brought motions to adjourn the scheduled trial until after the completion of related criminal proceedings against them.

The court held that the parents could testify in the child protection proceeding without prejudicing their criminal trial rights and that the statutory timelines under the Child and Family Services Act and Family Law Rules required timely resolution.

The court found no sufficient evidentiary basis to delay the matter beyond the statutory limits and dismissed the parents’ adjournment motions.

However, the court granted an adjournment to allow the father to retain new counsel after his lawyer withdrew for health reasons, and removed counsel of record.

The trial dates were vacated and rescheduled to a fixed date.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual interference, arguing that the trial judge erred by proceeding with the trial using only transcripts and exhibits from a prior uncompleted trial, without hearing viva voce evidence.

The appellant had demonstrated significant difficulty understanding English during the first trial, which was conducted without an interpreter until late in his cross-examination.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge erred in relying on the transcripts given the central issue of credibility and the appellant's lack of comprehension, which denied him a fair trial.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The defendant sought costs following a motion to settle the powers and duties of an interim condominium administrator appointed years earlier without clearly defined authority.

The court reviewed the extent of the defendant’s participation and the value of the submissions, noting that many proposed drafting changes were stylistic rather than substantive and that the administrator had not taken an unreasonable position.

The plaintiffs neither filed materials nor attended the motion, and the administrator had acted pursuant to the court’s direction to clarify the mandate.

The court held that no basis existed for costs beyond partial indemnity.

Costs of $4,500 were awarded to the moving party in the cause, payable by the condominium corporation depending on the outcome of the underlying action.

Following an application concerning enforcement of an agreement of purchase and sale for real property, the court determined entitlement and quantum of costs.

The purchaser applicant had succeeded in obtaining an order confirming that the vendor corporation remained obligated to convey title and extending the closing date.

Competing internal factions within the respondent corporation advanced opposing positions, but neither faction was treated as a party for purposes of the costs determination.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court held that partial indemnity costs were appropriate and rejected a claim for higher or substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed in favour of the applicant purchaser and payable by the respondent corporation.

On a motion for summary judgment in a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the moving child protection agency sought permanent Crown wardship of two children who had been in foster care for an extended period.

The mother consented to the wardship, while the father sought custody or access and argued that factual disputes regarding his past involvement with the children required a trial.

The court held that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial because the father had been largely absent from the children’s lives for several years and had not advanced a viable plan of care.

Considering the statutory time limits, the children’s need for permanency, and the father’s lack of meaningful involvement, the court determined the children were in need of protection and that Crown wardship was in their best interests.

Summary judgment was granted.

Following a lengthy family law trial involving issues of spousal support, child support, alienation, counselling orders, and other relief, the court determined costs between the parties.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, emphasizing that success is the primary factor in determining costs, but that unreasonable behaviour and settlement offers may also influence the outcome.

Although success was divided across most issues, the applicant was clearly successful on the significant issue of parental alienation, resulting in a monetary penalty against the respondent.

Settlement offers exchanged before trial were considered but neither party achieved a result as favourable as their offers.

The court awarded the applicant partial costs attributable primarily to the alienation issue.

In a family law trial, the court determined whether the parties had a valid Florida marriage where the respondent used an alias and whether that marriage was valid in Ontario under s. 31 of the Marriage Act.

Applying authorities on fraudulent misrepresentation in marriage formalities, the court held the misrepresentation did not invalidate the marriage because both parties intended to marry each other and understood each other’s identity.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant, ordered conditional access, and made child and spousal support orders after imputing $35,000 annual income to the respondent for inadequate disclosure and intentional underemployment findings.

The court denied both restraining-order requests and awarded partial-indemnity costs to the applicant.

The applicant purchaser brought an emergency application for specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a commercial property.

The respondent vendor failed to close the transaction on the scheduled date, citing the purchaser's lack of mortgage funds, while the vendor itself had failed to answer requisitions or prepare closing documents due to an internal corporate dispute.

The court found that the vendor's failure to perform its obligations and its implied renunciation of the contract relieved the purchaser of the requirement to tender.

The court ordered specific performance, enforcing an extension of the closing date agreed to by the vendor's ostensible representatives.

In a high-conflict family law trial, the court addressed issues of child support, spousal support, and parental alienation.

The court found that the respondent father had intentionally alienated the two younger children from the applicant mother, using police and child protection services to drive a wedge between them.

The father was found in contempt of an access order and fined $4,000.

The court imputed income to both parties, finding the mother intentionally under-employed by working 4.5 days a week, and the father intentionally under-employed by taking a 40% pre-retirement income reduction to avoid spousal support.

The court ordered the mother to pay child support for the two younger children living with the father, and ordered the father to pay compensatory spousal support to the mother, with step-downs leading to his retirement.

The respondent was successful in defeating the appellant's motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing a stay motion.

The respondent sought costs of $8,026.68 for the motion and additional costs for the appeal that was commenced as of right before the appellant realized leave was required.

The court noted the underlying action was a Rule 76 claim for $22,000 in unpaid rent, making the costs claimed disproportionate.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, fixing the costs of the motion at $3,700 and the costs of the abandoned appeal at $1,800.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program brought motions to dismiss three appeals to the Divisional Court due to a six-year delay in perfecting them.

The appellants argued the delay was due to awaiting outcomes of second claims, waiting for appellate decisions, a computer error by the Registrar, and clinic workload.

The court found it could not assess the potential prejudice to the Director without the medical records and Tribunal notes, which would be before the full panel.

The motions were adjourned to the panel hearing the appeals.

The defendant tenant sought an extension of time and leave to appeal a decision dismissing his motion to stay the plaintiff landlord's action for unpaid rent.

The tenant argued the dispute should be arbitrated pursuant to a shareholder agreement.

The court granted the extension of time but denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusion that the rent dispute arose solely under the lease, which contained no arbitration clause.