P.J. Boucher

The plaintiff in a patent infringement action brought a motion to compel the defendants to produce additional financial information and records relating to the use of the allegedly infringing mine doors, and to make officers available for cross-examination.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the statement of claim did not plead an accounting of profits against the co-defendant purchaser, and that the request against the manufacturer defendant was premature as the plaintiff had not yet conducted examinations for discovery to identify specific missing documents.

The garnishee, Vale Canada Limited, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs in a long-standing garnishment proceeding.

The court found that Vale established a prima facie case for security for costs, as the estate plaintiff was a nominal plaintiff and there was good reason to believe the corporate plaintiffs had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The court also found good reason to believe the garnishment proceeding was frivolous and vexatious.

The plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of sufficient assets or impecuniosity.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay $85,000 into court as security for costs.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 25(19)(b) of the Family Law Rules to correct alleged mathematical errors in the court's previous decision regarding child and spousal support.

The court found that while it did not intend to gross-up the pre-tax income as the applicant suggested, it did make an inputting error in the DivorceMate software.

The court exercised its discretion to correct the error, resulting in adjusted monthly child support of $1,719 and spousal support of $2,478.

The Integrity Commissioner applied for a determination that a municipal councillor contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by failing to declare a pecuniary interest and voting on a matter involving her own remuneration suspension.

The councillor admitted the contravention but argued for a lesser penalty, citing officially induced error and bias.

The court rejected these defences, finding the councillor's actions were not mere inadvertence given her experience and prior sanctions.

The court declared the councillor's seat vacant and issued a reprimand.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an encounter in his vehicle after driving the complainant and her friends home from a nightclub.

The complainant testified she was heavily intoxicated, experienced blackouts, and awoke during sexual acts to which she did not consent.

The court found the complainant lacked the capacity to consent due to her level of intoxication.

The court further rejected the accused's defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent, finding he failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent after the complainant had earlier expressed reluctance.

The accused was found guilty.

The mother brought an urgent motion for the return of the children, interim spousal support, and an increase in child support.

The father brought a cross-motion to change the parenting time set out in an existing interim order.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the children's desire to spend more time with the father, but maintained the mother's decision-making responsibility and primary residence due to the high conflict between the parents.

The father's parenting time was slightly increased.

The court also ordered increased child support based on the father's higher income and awarded interim spousal support to the mother.

The father brought a motion to change final orders regarding decision-making, parenting time, and child support.

He sought decision-making authority, primary residence, and a retroactive reduction in child support.

The mother opposed the changes.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to a complete breakdown in communication between the parents, but determined it was in the children's best interests for the mother to retain decision-making authority and primary residence.

The court ordered the parties to use OurFamilyWizard for all communication.

The court adjusted ongoing child support based on the father's current income but declined to order a retroactive reduction for previous years due to his delay in seeking relief.

The parties were also ordered to proportionately share extraordinary extracurricular expenses.