Peter James Doucet

The respondent father brought a motion for compliance with a consent temporary parenting time order dated April 12, 2024, and sought make-up parenting time for time that was withheld.

The applicant mother countered with a motion to vary the parenting time order and impose supervised parenting time.

The central issue involved allegations of family violence and coercive control by the father.

Following a high-risk committee meeting on March 12, 2025, the mother withheld the child and supervised parenting time was implemented.

The Children's Aid Society initially required supervision but subsequently changed its position and stated it was not taking a position on parenting time.

The court found that while the father had engaged in reprehensible conduct in the past, his recent behavior demonstrated a shift, he had cooperated with authorities, undertaken counselling and programming, and there was no evidence of continued violations of court orders.

The court dismissed the mother's motion for supervised parenting time, ordered the mother to comply with the April 12, 2024 order, and denied the father's request for make-up time.

The defendant Danark moved to dismiss the action for delay under Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the court's inherent jurisdiction, or alternatively for a timetable.

The plaintiff opposed the motion.

The action was commenced in February 2017 to perfect a lien registered in January 2017.

Discoveries were completed in August 2019, with undertakings answered by June 2020.

Significant delay occurred thereafter, attributed by the plaintiff to COVID-19 pandemic impacts on its business, loss of a major client in 2021, and difficulties in retaining new counsel due to a solicitor's lien on its file.

The court found the delay was not inexcusable and that the plaintiff had rebutted the presumption of inherent prejudice.

The trial record had been passed and the action was trial-ready.

The motion was dismissed, and the parties were ordered to schedule a judicial pre-trial.

The applicants brought a non-party production motion in a multi-party Children’s Law Reform Act application concerning the future care of three Indigenous children.

The motion sought records from Probation and Parole Services, the Ontario Provincial Police, and Payukotayno-James and Hudson’s Bay Family Services regarding the respondent parents and the children's older siblings.

The court granted the production order, finding the records relevant to determining the children's best interests and understanding the family's history, including constitutional questions related to Indigenous inherent rights.

The court balanced privacy interests against the need for full disclosure, noting the parents' non-engagement and the existing sealing order.

The appellant, a corporation operating a Canadian Tire store, appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing a defamation action under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The motion judge found that a Facebook post and media article by the respondents describing poor customer service at the store related to a matter of public interest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no extricable error of law or palpable and overriding factual error.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment, claiming constructive dismissal and seeking damages for the unexpired term of her fixed-term employment contract, plus punitive damages.

The court found that the plaintiff was constructively dismissed when the defendant placed her on an unauthorized, indefinite administrative suspension without pay, which constituted a fundamental breach of her employment contract.

The defendant's subsequent attempt to terminate for just cause was rejected as an impermissible retrospective dismissal based on pre-existing or discoverable grounds.

The court granted summary judgment for constructive dismissal and awarded damages for the unexpired contract term.

However, issues regarding the plaintiff's mitigation efforts and entitlement to punitive damages were deemed to require a mini-trial and a full trial, respectively, due to conflicting evidence.

A former spouse sought determination of the continuing obligation for spousal support following a consent order that suspended support if the recipient cohabited with another person for one year and terminated it after three years.

The court determined the recipient began cohabiting with a new partner in May 2008, resulting in suspension of support after one year during that relationship, but found insufficient evidence that a later romantic partner constituted cohabitation.

The payor’s income had subsequently declined due to disability, raising the issue of variation under s. 17 of the Divorce Act.

The court held the recipient remained economically disadvantaged from a long marriage and was not proven capable of self‑sufficiency despite limited medical documentation.

Support was therefore varied downward to reflect the payor’s reduced income, with limited retrospective suspension during the earlier cohabitation period.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim, the defendants sought costs.

The plaintiff’s written costs submissions were filed out of time and were not considered by the court.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that costs should follow the event.

The court accepted the defendants’ reduced request for partial indemnity costs and noted that the proceeding had been ill-advised, unduly prolonged, and at times conducted in an abusive fashion.

Costs were awarded to the defendants in the amount of $55,662.16.

A custody and access dispute concerning a child born in 2009 to parents who had a brief, conflicted relationship.

The applicant father sought joint custody with primary residence, while the respondent mother sought sole custody with supervised access.

The case involved a high-conflict history with 27 court appearances and 16 temporary orders.

The central issue was whether the child should relocate with the mother to Kapuskasing for employment purposes or remain in North Bay with the father.

The court applied the mobility factors from Gordon v. Goertz and Berry v. Berry to determine the child's best interests.