Price

The defendant Google LLC moved for summary judgment to dismiss a defamation action brought by a daycare business and its owner.

The plaintiffs alleged that defamatory and fake reviews were posted on Google's 'Local Reviews' platform by the other defendants.

Google argued it was a passive intermediary and not a publisher of the third-party content.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues of fact and law requiring a trial, particularly regarding whether Google became a publisher by failing to remove the reviews after receiving notice of their defamatory nature.

The plaintiffs were also granted leave to bring a motion to amend their Statement of Claim.

The applicant father brought Motions to Change seeking to terminate spousal support, reduce child support, and expand parenting time.

The respondent mother moved to strike the applicant's motions due to his persistent failure to pay support and comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The applicant also brought a cross-motion to find the respondent in contempt for allegedly failing to facilitate parenting time.

The court denied the applicant's request for a further adjournment, finding it would cause undue delay and prejudice.

The court granted the respondent's motion to strike the Motions to Change, finding the applicant's non-compliance with support and disclosure orders to be egregious and willful.

The court dismissed the applicant's contempt motion, relying on Voice of the Child reports indicating the children adamantly refused contact with the applicant due to his past conduct, and finding the respondent had made reasonable efforts to facilitate access.

The applicant moved for the equal distribution of the net sale proceeds of a jointly owned investment condominium following the parties' separation.

The self-represented respondent objected, claiming a holdback for management fees she incurred while managing the property.

The court noted that while a joint tenant cannot typically charge management fees, the respondent's claim could be framed in equity as unjust enrichment or constructive trust.

Applying the principles for self-represented litigants, the court dismissed the applicant's motion without prejudice and granted the respondent leave to amend her pleadings to properly assert her equitable claims.

The respondent husband brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant wife's application to set aside their separation agreement.

The wife brought a cross-motion for financial disclosure.

The wife argued the agreement should be set aside due to financial non-disclosure, duress, undue influence, and unconscionability, alleging the husband dictated the terms and threatened her.

The court found genuine issues for trial regarding the validity of the agreement, noting the husband's failure to provide financial disclosure and evasiveness during cross-examination.

The court dismissed the husband's motion for summary judgment, granted the wife's motion for financial disclosure, and ordered the husband to pay costs on a full recovery basis.

The applicant sought a declaration that an access road to his property was a public road that the Township was obligated to maintain, and an order requiring its restoration.

The road had become impassable due to flooding caused by the Ministry of Transportation's removal of a culvert during highway reconstruction.

The court found the road was a public highway through historical dedication and acceptance.

The court held that the Ministry's actions caused the flooding, amounting to both injurious affection and de facto expropriation by landlocking the property.

The Ministry was ordered to restore the culverts and indemnify the Township for restoring the road, failing which the property would be deemed expropriated, allowing the applicant to seek compensation at the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The applicants sought an order directing the substituted buyer to transfer title of a pre-construction property to them.

The respondent had assigned his Agreement of Purchase and Sale to the applicants but failed to seek the builder's consent or pay the required fees.

Instead, as the property value rose, the respondent amended the agreement to substitute his realtor's wife as the buyer.

The court found that the respondent breached his duty of good faith by failing to take reasonable steps to complete the assignment.

The court ordered the substituted buyer, who held title in trust, to transfer the property to the applicants upon payment of the originally agreed purchase price.

The parties disputed the costs of previous motions regarding their child's parenting schedule and school enrollment, in which the respondent father was successful.

The applicant mother argued costs should be reduced because the respondent refused to mediate the dispute.

The court found the respondent's refusal to mediate was not unreasonable given the applicant's insistence on including her proposed relocation in the mediation.

Conversely, the court found the applicant acted unreasonably by unilaterally enrolling the child in a new school and withholding parenting time.

The court awarded the respondent his costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $9,613.48.

The parties disputed the costs of motions regarding their children's school enrollment, in which the applicant was successful.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the respondent acted unreasonably by unilaterally enrolling the children in a different school and refusing to adhere to their prior educational plan.

The respondent argued each party should bear their own costs because the applicant refused to participate in mediation/arbitration.

The court found neither party's conduct warranted a departure from partial indemnity costs.

The applicant was awarded $9,033.00 in costs, payable upon the resolution of the remaining issues or the sale of the family residence.

The parties separated and the applicant mother unilaterally relocated with the child from Mississauga to Etobicoke, enrolling the child in a new school.

The respondent father brought a motion to have the child returned to her previous school in Mississauga and for a shared parenting schedule.

The court found that it was in the child's best interests to maintain stability by returning to her previous school in Mississauga.

The court ordered a temporary 4-3/3-4 shared parenting schedule and appointed an assessor to conduct a section 30 assessment.

The parties, separated parents of two children, brought cross-motions for directions regarding which schools their children should attend for the 2021/2022 academic year.

The applicant sought to maintain the parties' pre-separation education plan, which involved the older child attending a 50/50 French Immersion program at a school in Caledon and the younger child attending a full French school in Orangeville for kindergarten.

The respondent, who had unilaterally enrolled the children in a different school in Orangeville after purchasing a home there, sought to have both children attend the new school.

The court applied the best interests of the child test, considering factors such as stability, the parents' ability to support the children's education, and the children's community connections.

The court found that maintaining the pre-separation education plan was in the children's best interests and ordered the children to attend the schools proposed by the applicant.

The parties attended a family law case conference.

The respondent husband revealed for the first time at the conference that he and his partners had sold their business the previous day, despite having negotiated the sale for five months.

The applicant wife sought leave to retain her own Chartered Business Valuator to prepare a comprehensive valuation of the respondent's business interest, which the respondent opposed on the basis that they had previously jointly retained a valuator who provided a calculation valuation.

The court granted the applicant leave to retain her own expert, finding that the respondent failed to comply with his financial disclosure obligations and that the previous calculation valuation provided little assurance of accuracy.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the conference due to his late disclosure, with the amount to be determined.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment for repayment of an alleged loan, and the self-represented defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action.

The defendant requested an adjournment due to symptoms from a COVID-19 vaccination.

The court granted the adjournment and provided extensive procedural guidance to the self-represented defendant, ordering her to file an affidavit, attend cross-examinations, participate in mediation, and file a factum before the rescheduled hearing.

Following the successful dismissal of a medical malpractice action on summary judgment due to the expiry of the limitation period, the defendants sought their costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendant doctor, finding the amounts claimed reasonable and proportionate.

The defendant clinic was awarded substantial indemnity costs from the date of its offer to settle, as the plaintiffs' continued opposition to the motion was unreasonable given their failure to produce an expert report.

At a family law case conference, the applicant wife sought orders for financial disclosure and costs.

The respondent husband had delayed providing complete financial disclosure for over two years and provided an Estimate Valuation Report instead of a Comprehensive Valuation Report.

The court ordered the husband to pay $60,000 for the wife's expert disbursements, $20,000 for expenses incurred due to delayed disclosure, and $10,000 for the costs of the unproductive case conference.

The respondent father brought a motion to contest the Ontario court's jurisdiction over the applicant mother's claims for custody and child support, arguing the child was habitually resident in Iraq.

The father had allegedly abducted the child during a vacation to the Middle East and failed to attend the case conference as ordered.

The court applied the hybrid approach to habitual residence and found the child was habitually resident in Ontario.

The father's motion was dismissed, his pleadings were struck for failing to obey court orders, and the mother was granted temporary custody and leave to proceed to an uncontested hearing.

The defendants in a medical malpractice and wrongful death action brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the Family Law Act claims of the deceased's partner, arguing he did not meet the definition of a spouse.

The defendants also moved to remove him as the litigation guardian for the deceased's minor grandchildren.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the partner's spousal status based on conflicting evidence.

The court also dismissed the motion to remove the litigation guardian, finding him qualified, indifferent to the outcome, and not adverse in interest to the minors.

The applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis following a successful motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for failing to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The court found that the respondent's evasive responses and repeated breaches of court orders amounted to bad faith and a deliberate attempt to frustrate the applicant's claims.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a full recovery basis, fixed at $30,539.97, noting that the respondent's conduct justified the higher scale of costs.

The parties separated after a common law relationship during which they had two children.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and a constructive trust over the jointly owned home and the respondent father's other rental properties.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother with liberal access to the father.

The court imputed additional rental income to the father and ordered retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses.

Finding that the father was unjustly enriched by the mother's financial and domestic contributions, which allowed him to acquire and maintain multiple rental properties, the court vested the jointly owned family home solely in the mother as a constructive trust remedy.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary his child support obligations, which was dismissed due to his deliberate failure to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The respondent mother sought her costs of the motion.

The court found that the applicant's persistent non-disclosure amounted to bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Consequently, the court awarded the respondent her costs on a full recovery basis, fixed at $16,525.29.

The respondent was previously found in contempt for failing to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders in a family law proceeding.

Despite being given numerous opportunities and being fined, the respondent persisted in his failure to provide complete banking records, authorizations, and a proper business valuation.

The applicant sought orders for the respondent's incarceration and to strike his pleadings.

The court declined to order incarceration, finding it would not likely bring about compliance and would disadvantage the applicant.

However, applying the three-part test from Ferguson v. Charlton, the court struck the respondent's pleadings due to his egregious and deliberate non-compliance, allowing the applicant to proceed to an uncontested hearing.