P. E. Roger

The applicants sought to appoint Derek Stanley Metcalfe and Richard Cotnam as estate trustees.

The respondent consented to his own removal but opposed the appointment of Mr. Metcalfe, alleging conflict of interest and bias.

The court found that while there was friction between the parties, it did not rise to a level that would prevent the proper execution of the trust or show a lack of impartiality.

The court appointed the applicants' proposed trustees and awarded partial indemnity costs of $19,600 payable by the respondent personally.

The defendants brought motions seeking to adjourn an upcoming wrongful dismissal and defamation jury trial sine die to allow for summary judgment motions, and to sever the claims against one defendant for a separate trial.

The court dismissed the motion to sever, finding significant factual overlap between the claims and concluding that a single trial was more proportionate and efficient.

The court also dismissed the adjournment motion, noting that the eve of trial is rarely appropriate for summary judgment motions, especially where credibility issues exist, and that delaying the trial would prejudice the plaintiff.

The offender was convicted by a jury of assault and assault causing bodily harm against his former intimate partner.

The assaults occurred years apart, with one resulting in fractured ribs.

The Crown sought six to eight months of incarceration, while the offender sought a non-custodial or intermittent sentence.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for domestic violence, the court sentenced the offender to 122 days in custody followed by two years of probation.

The accused pleaded guilty to arson and failing to comply with a probation order after setting fire to a garbage can at a hospital while experiencing a substance-induced psychotic episode.

The Crown sought a 15-month jail sentence, while the accused sought a sentence of time served.

The court considered the accused's mental health issues, his proactive steps toward rehabilitation, and the fact that he moved the burning garbage can outside to minimize damage.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years of probation, emphasizing rehabilitation alongside denunciation and deterrence.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for an equitable mortgage.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to determine the proper amount of the remaining proceeds from a power of sale.

The court granted the defendants' motion, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial as the parties always intended the plaintiff to have a second-ranking charge behind construction financing.

On the cross-motion, the court disallowed the defendants' three-month interest charge under section 8 of the Interest Act, reduced the claimed legal fees, and ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff the balance of the residual proceeds of $99,400.83.

The applicant mother and respondent father resolved final issues regarding child support arrears, special or extraordinary expenses, summer parenting time, and the location of child exchanges.

The court ordered the father to pay $11,717.30 in child support arrears and $1,000 for special expenses.

The court also granted the father three weeks of summer parenting time and ordered that child exchanges no longer need to be supervised, moving them to a public McDonald's location.

The respondents brought a motion to stay the applicant's Charter challenge to the sex offender registry pending the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in a similar case, G. v. Attorney General for Ontario.

The applicant, who was found not criminally responsible and granted an absolute discharge, argued his case presented distinct legal arguments and a more compelling factual scenario.

The court granted the stay, finding that the two matters shared significant common questions of law and fact, and that a stay would prevent inconsistent dispositions, save judicial resources, and avoid a multiplicity of proceedings without causing undue prejudice to the applicant.

The court determined the costs of a family law application where success was divided but the respondent was overall more successful.

The applicant failed to provide written costs submissions and had failed to attend the last two days of trial.

The respondent had made an offer to settle that was more favourable to the applicant than the final order.

Consequently, the court awarded the respondent costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer and on a full indemnity basis thereafter, fixing the total costs payable by the applicant at $54,471.

The offender, an 80-year-old former priest, was convicted of three counts of historical indecent assault against three altar boys between 1969 and 1974.

The Crown sought 18 months' incarceration, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the aggravating factors of multiple child victims and breach of trust, alongside mitigating factors including the offender's age, lack of criminal record, and low risk of reoffending.

The court concluded that the specific facts of the case, involving less intrusive touching compared to other cases, warranted a 12-month conditional sentence followed by 18 months of probation, along with DNA and sex offender registry orders.

The plaintiff, a 58-year-old top-performing sales manager with eight years of service, brought a wrongful dismissal action against his former employer.

The court found the plaintiff was an employee, not an independent contractor, from the start of his engagement.

The court awarded a 12-month reasonable notice period, calculating damages based on base salary and an upward trend in commissions.

The court dismissed the claim for aggravated damages due to insufficient evidence of mental distress, but awarded $50,000 in punitive damages because the employer alleged just cause in bad faith as a negotiation tactic and significantly delayed paying statutory entitlements.

The parties attended a reference to deal with jointly owned properties and related accounting issues arising from the division of the proceeds of sale of jointly owned properties, following a trial order.

The Master addressed various post-separation adjustments, including carrying costs for the matrimonial home, a rooming house, and a trailer.

The Master found that post-separation adjustments for costs incurred prior to trial were subject to res judicata and should have been raised at trial.

The Master also determined that the applicant was not entitled to a credit for carrying costs of the matrimonial home post-separation, as they were offset by the respondent's potential claim for occupational rent.

Various other financial adjustments were ordered to be made from the proceeds of sale held in trust.