Paul U. Rivard

The appellant mother appealed a custody and access order granting her custody of the parties’ two children and providing the father with access.

The father argued the trial judge erred in concluding that an earlier ex parte order granting him temporary custody was obtained through incomplete disclosure and that the resulting status quo should not influence the best interests analysis under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The appeal also alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the trial judge’s questioning of witnesses.

The court held the trial judge was entitled to find that material facts were not fully disclosed on the ex parte motion and that the resulting temporary custody arrangement constituted an unlawful status quo.

No reasonable apprehension of bias was established and the custody determination based on the children’s best interests was entitled to deference.

The applicant sought spousal support of $1,500 per month while receiving CPP disability benefits and incurring significant monthly drug expenses.

The respondent had a monthly income of approximately $5,021.

The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines suggested a range of $552 to $737 per month based on the parties’ circumstances.

The court found that the applicant’s financial needs, including increased expenses associated with her adult son returning home while attending college and her disability-related costs, justified an award above the guideline range.

Spousal support was set at $1,000 per month and the respondent was ordered to maintain medical and drug coverage.

A municipality brought an application seeking to restrain landowners and a contractor from removing fill and other materials from agricultural-zoned land and to compel restoration of the grading.

The municipality argued the activity constituted an impermissible extractive use and raised safety concerns related to truck access onto a nearby roadway.

The respondents asserted the work was intended to level the property following the removal of a former railway trestle embankment and disputed the existence of safety risks.

The court found several key factual issues—including zoning implications, the legality of the access, and alleged road safety hazards—could not be resolved on the application record and would require a trial.

As an interim measure, the court restrained excavation activity until a specified date and directed the respondents to apply for a municipal access permit while encouraging negotiations to resolve the dispute.

The appellant appealed a trial decision concerning custody and principal residence of a child following the mother's relocation from North Bay to the Hanover area.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in failing to consider the possibility that she would return to North Bay if ordered by the court.

The appeal judge held there was no evidence before the trial judge that the appellant intended to return, and therefore the trial judge was entitled to treat the relocation as a material change in circumstances requiring reconsideration of custody.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the trial judge’s findings—favouring stability and the father’s parenting—were entitled to deference.

Fresh evidence tendered on appeal was rejected as insufficient to affect the outcome.

The plaintiffs sought interlocutory injunctive relief restraining a former shareholder, director, and employee from using confidential information and soliciting customers following the sale of his shares in a closely held corporation.

The evidence indicated the departing fiduciary took electronic files containing proprietary customer information and immediately solicited key customers after the share sale.

The court found a strong prima facie case of breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition, notwithstanding the absence of a non‑competition agreement.

Given the likelihood of irreparable harm through loss of goodwill and customer relationships, and the balance of convenience favouring the plaintiffs, injunctive relief was granted.

The injunction restrained the former fiduciary and his corporation from using confidential information and soliciting customers for a limited period pending trial.

The appellant appealed a trial decision granting custody of a child to the mother and addressing the issue of mobility.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by considering custody and mobility together rather than determining custody first, and by misconstruing evidence relating to the parties’ circumstances.

The court held the trial judge properly focused on the best interests of the child under s. 24(1) of the Children’s Law Reform Act and reasonably concluded both parents were capable caregivers.

It was open to the trial judge to find that the child’s contact with both parents would be maximized if the child resided with the mother.

No palpable and overriding error was established and the appeal was dismissed.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a consent order requiring him to pay $500 per month in child support for two children.

Shortly before the consent order was finalized, his employment was terminated and he subsequently began receiving a Canada Pension Plan disability pension.

The court accepted that the order had been entered under a mistaken belief that CPP benefits would fully cover his support obligation and found that the CPP payments to the children constituted a material change in circumstances.

Given the father's limited income and inability to pay the ordered amount, the court varied the support obligation.

Child support was reduced to reflect the shortfall between CPP benefits paid for the children and the original order.

Following a motion in estate litigation, the applicant sought recovery of costs against the estate trustees.

The Superior Court of Justice determined that the applicant was entitled to costs of the motion on a partial indemnity scale.

The court assessed the quantum of recoverable fees, HST, and disbursements and fixed the total amount payable by the respondents.

The endorsement deals solely with the quantification and entitlement to costs arising from the motion.

The applicant sought temporary support from the estate of her late common-law spouse, with whom she cohabited for 34 years.

The court found that the deceased had not made adequate provision for her proper support and that she was in need of financial assistance.

Applying the factors under section 62 of the Succession Law Reform Act, the court ordered the estate to pay temporary support of $1,600 per month, including accumulated arrears.