Peter Callahan

The plaintiffs, two senior citizens, were detained and arrested at the Canada-U.S. border by the CBSA and subsequently the Niagara Police based on outdated CPIC information indicating they had breached undertakings.

The undertakings had been vacated weeks earlier, but the RCMP failed to update the CPIC system.

The court found that the RCMP breached its duty of care by failing to promptly remove the inaccurate information, and that the CBSA and Niagara Police breached their standard of care by failing to verify the CPIC information before arresting the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' section 9 Charter rights were also violated.

The court awarded general and punitive damages against the RCMP and Niagara Police, but dismissed the claims against the CBSA as statute-barred under the Customs Act.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking equal shared parenting and a corresponding reduction in child support under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The respondent mother opposed, seeking to maintain the status quo of her primary care.

The court applied the newly amended Divorce Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Barendregt, noting the 'maximum contact principle' has been replaced by the 'parenting time factor' which is strictly subject to the child's best interests.

Finding the father's request was partly financially motivated and that the status quo favoured the mother, the court ordered the children to remain in the mother's primary care.

The father was ordered to pay full table child support and arrears.

The applicant brought a motion to have the net sale proceeds of two cottage properties paid to the Family Responsibility Office to satisfy approximately $480,000 in spousal support and costs arrears owed by the respondent.

One property was owned by the respondent personally, and the other by his closely-held corporation.

The court found that the respondent had not established a prima facie case to vary his support obligations and ordered the proceeds of his personal property released.

Furthermore, the court applied the test for piercing the corporate veil, finding that the respondent exercised complete control over the corporation and used it to unjustly deprive the applicant of her support entitlements.

The court ordered the proceeds from both properties to be paid to the applicant.

The plaintiff moved for default judgment against the defendant website owner for defamation.

The alleged defamatory statements appeared in an English translation of a Chinese article, generated automatically when a user clicked an embedded Google Translate widget.

The court dismissed the action, holding that providing a free, automated translation widget does not constitute 'publication' of the translated text by the website owner, as the acts merely transmit information in a content-neutral way without expression, adoption, or endorsement.

The plaintiffs brought an action for the release of two tranches of escrow funds held pursuant to a share purchase agreement.

The defendant moved to stay the action in favour of arbitration, arguing its claims for equitable set-off fell under the agreement's arbitration clause.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the claim for the first tranche was a proper matter for summary judgment and fell within the statutory exception to mandatory arbitration.

The court granted partial summary judgment for the first tranche, holding that the defendant's unliquidated claims for equitable set-off could not be used to withhold the escrow funds.

However, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the accounting adjustments for the second tranche and ordered a mini-trial.

The applicant wife was successful on a motion regarding the respondent husband's failure to comply with court orders and make financial disclosure.

The court awarded costs to the applicant, noting the respondent's unreasonable behaviour and breach of four court orders.

The respondent was ordered to pay $19,298.79 in costs forthwith and prohibited from bringing further proceedings until paid.

The applicant brought a motion to change child support, which the respondent eventually settled by accepting an offer.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The court found that the respondent engaged in bad faith by deliberately failing to make timely financial disclosure, which unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $32,223.69, representing partial recovery up to the date of her offer to settle and full recovery thereafter.