Price

The plaintiff's former lawyer moved to be removed as lawyer of record and for a charging order against any future settlement or judgment in a personal injury action.

The client had terminated the contingency fee retainer and attempted to negotiate directly with the defendant insurer to avoid paying legal fees.

The court granted the motion, finding that the lawyer had brought the action to the eve of trial and any future recovery would be through the instrumentality of his efforts.

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce a final order requiring the respondent father to provide annual income disclosure and automatically adjust child support.

The father argued this was effectively a motion to change the final order and should be heard alongside his own motion to change based on material changes in circumstances.

The court held that seeking compliance with an automatic adjustment clause is a matter of enforcement under Rule 1(8), not a motion to change under Rule 15.

The court ordered that the mother's enforcement motion be heard before the father's motion to change, as delaying enforcement would undermine the integrity of the existing order.

The respondents brought a motion requesting the motion judge recuse himself on the ground of reasonable apprehension of bias.

The motion was based on an exchange during a previous motion where the judge commented that he was 'thinking of making an order to wind up the whole operation' in response to respondents' counsel stating he was considering a motion to close part of the business.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, finding that the comments were intended to explore counsel's musings and remind him of the range of possible outcomes, and did not demonstrate bias or pre-determination of the issues.

Following the dismissal of the self-represented plaintiff's $17 million action against the WSIB and WSIAT for lack of jurisdiction, the defendants sought costs.

The WSIB claimed $7,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, and the WSIAT claimed $3,000.

The court considered the principles of indemnification, reasonableness, and access to justice, noting that the plaintiff's claim, while lacking a viable cause of action in the Superior Court, was not frivolous or vexatious.

Recognizing the plaintiff's self-represented status and the need to balance access to justice with discouraging improper litigation, the court fixed costs at $3,000 payable to each defendant.

The defendant vendor moved for partial summary judgment to release a $100,000 holdback from the sale of a commercial property intended for a gas station.

The holdback was agreed upon at closing because the plaintiff purchaser's environmental consultant had concerns about the vendor's Phase II environmental report.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the delivery of the report itself, as the vendor provided what was contracted for.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the remedy for the vendor's breach of a separate condition precedent to satisfy the purchaser's consultant's concerns before the funds could be released.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion finding the respondent in contempt for unilaterally relocating the parties' children and dismissing the respondent's cross-motion.

The court found that the respondent acted unreasonably and in bad faith by willfully breaching a court order and making unfounded allegations of abuse to justify the relocation.

The applicant was awarded costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $11,198.44.

The applicant, a dependent spouse residing in a long-term care facility, brought a motion for directions and preservation orders against her deceased husband's estate and its beneficiaries.

The deceased had previously severed the joint tenancy of their matrimonial home using a Power of Attorney, sold the home, and transferred funds to himself and his niece (the Estate Trustee).

The court ordered the Estate Trustee to provide an informal accounting of the deceased's management of the applicant's property, her own management of the deceased's property, and her actions as Estate Trustee.

The court also granted an injunction preventing the dissipation of estate assets and ordered the beneficiaries to pay into court any monies received from the deceased or his estate.

In an uncontested trial, the applicant mother sought sole custody, retroactive and ongoing child support, and section 7 expenses for the parties' two children.

The respondent father had minimal contact with the children and paid minimal support since separation.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, imputed income to the father based on his 2014 earnings adjusted for inflation, and ordered him to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, as well as his proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

The mother was also awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' two-year-old child in an uncontested trial.

The respondent father, who had been deported to Nigeria, did not appear but had previously mailed an Answer requesting custody when the child turns ten and access in the interim.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act and the Children's Law Reform Act.

Finding that the mother had been the sole caregiver since birth and the father had no involvement, the court granted sole custody to the mother with reasonable access to the father.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for his repeated failure to comply with multiple court orders requiring financial disclosure.

The parties separated after a 13-year relationship, and the applicant required corporate and personal financial information to establish her claims for spousal support and equalization of net family property.

The court found that the respondent wilfully and deliberately breached previous disclosure orders and failed to answer undertakings from his questioning.

As a result, the court struck the respondent's pleadings, granted the applicant leave to proceed to an uncontested hearing, and ordered the respondent to pay costs on a substantial indemnity scale due to his bad faith conduct.

The applicant wife sought to set aside a separation agreement after discovering the respondent husband had secretly mortgaged the matrimonial home with his mother, withdrawing most of its equity prior to separation.

The husband failed to participate in the proceedings, resulting in an undefended trial.

The court set aside the separation agreement due to the husband's material misrepresentation of his liabilities.

The court found the husband and his mother held the property on a resulting trust for the parties, and the wife had a constructive trust interest.

The husband's secret mortgage constituted a reckless depletion of family property.

The husband was ordered to pay the wife half the unencumbered value of the home plus full recovery costs.

The respondents brought motions for access to their incapable mother, whose personal care and property were managed by the applicants as joint guardians.

The motions became moot when the mother passed away before an order could be finalized.

The court declined to award costs to either party, finding that while the respondents were entitled to some measure of success on the access issue, their unreasonable conduct precipitated the motions.

The court concluded that a no-costs order would best serve the objectives of indemnification, sanctioning unreasonable conduct, and encouraging settlement of remaining estate issues.

The defendant Attorney General of Canada moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence claim arising from a severe assault on the plaintiff inmate by three other inmates at Millhaven Institution.

The court found that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) breached its duty of care by placing the non-violent plaintiff with highly violent offenders, failing to enforce cell door protocols, ignoring the plaintiff's emergency cell alarm, and lacking adequate video surveillance.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on liability because the evidence overwhelmingly established CSC's negligence and causation.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs on liability, with damages to be determined at a subsequent trial.

The applicant condominium corporation sought a compliance order against a unit owner, alleging breaches of the Condominium Act and the corporation's rules arising from an alleged assault during a board election.

The respondent unit owner raised a preliminary issue of jurisdiction, arguing the dispute concerned the corporation's rules and required mediation or arbitration under s. 134(2) of the Act.

The court found the application was essentially a dispute over the board election and not about conduct likely to cause injury under the Act.

The court dismissed the application because the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory mediation and arbitration preconditions.

The parties separated after a 25-year traditional marriage.

The respondent mother sought interim spousal and child support for their child with cerebral palsy.

The applicant father, a self-employed business owner, failed to provide complete financial disclosure.

Relying on the respondent's expert business valuator, the court imputed an income of $488,000 to the father, grossing up undeclared management fees and discretionary expenses.

The court imputed an income of $40,000 to the mother based on her earning capacity.

The father was ordered to pay $3,764 monthly in child support, $11,374 monthly in spousal support, and 92% of section 7 expenses.

The applicant brought a motion to find the respondent in contempt of two prior court orders requiring financial disclosure, including the production of tax returns, bank statements, and a business valuation of his exotic car rental business.

The court found that the respondent had deliberately and wilfully breached both orders by failing to serve his Answer and Financial Statement on time, failing to produce his actual filed tax returns, failing to produce bank and PayPal statements, and failing to retain a Chartered Business Valuator.

The court found the respondent in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt and adjourned the matter for submissions on penalty and costs.

The applicants and respondents are neighbours who disputed ownership of a patch of land behind the respondents' garage.

The applicants sought an injunction to remove a storage container placed by the respondents, claiming ownership of the land through a self-conveyance.

The respondents cross-applied for a declaration of ownership by adverse possession.

The court traced the historical conveyances and determined that neither party owned the land nor held a right of way over it; rather, it belonged to a third-party neighbour.

Both the application for an injunction and the cross-application for adverse possession were dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's defamation claim.

The plaintiff had sued the defendants for publishing an article in a Chinese language newspaper about her arrest for fraud, which was based on an RCMP press release.

The charges were later withdrawn.

The court found that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the publication of the fact of a criminal charge, even after withdrawal, does not support a defamation claim.

Furthermore, the Google translation of the article relied upon by the plaintiff demonstrated that the article accurately stated she faced prison 'if convicted'.

The claim was struck without leave to amend as it was frivolous and vexatious.

The respondent mother brought a motion to find the applicant father in contempt of a 2013 joint custody order that required him to drive their two children to her home for weekend access.

The father unilaterally stopped driving the children, reducing the mother's access from three weekends a month to alternate weekends, and blamed the children's reluctance.

The court found the father in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, noting he failed to exercise parental authority to ensure compliance and deliberately undermined the mother's relationship with the children.

To remedy the contempt and serve the children's best interests, the court varied the order, granting the mother sole custody and primary residence.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary sole custody, retroactive child support, and contribution to special and extraordinary expenses.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for shared parenting and set-off child support.

The court found that the father's history of controlling behaviour and failure to pay support weighed against joint custody.

The court granted temporary sole custody to the mother, expanded the father's access to 35% of the time, and ordered the father to pay retroactive child support, ongoing table support, and 50% of the children's section 7 expenses.