R. Adam J. Pyne-Hilton

The appellant appealed a summary judgment ordering it to pay $338,984.20 in unpaid licence fees for sports fields that were closed or restricted due to COVID-19.

The appellant argued the agreements should be interpreted as 'pay-if-available', while the respondent argued payment was required for bargained-for times regardless of use.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no extricable errors of law or palpable and overriding errors in her application of contractual interpretation principles.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicants sought to remove Maria Vario as Estate Trustee of Angelo Vario's estate due to her failure to maintain the estate property and non-compliance with a prior court order.

The court granted the removal of the estate trustee and appointed Anthony Vario as the replacement, finding that the estate property was wasting and Maria had breached her duties.

The court dismissed the request for an immediate sale of the property, without prejudice, as it was inconsistent with the new trustee's duties to protect the life interest.

Costs were awarded to the applicants on a substantial indemnity basis, payable from the respondent's bequests.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment awarding the respondent $247,247.93 plus interest and costs under a mortgage, and requiring delivery of possession of the mortgaged property.

The respondent had advanced monies to the appellants to assist in running a charitable organization.

After the first two advances were repaid, the latter two were not, and the appellants subsequently executed a mortgage and promissory note to secure the outstanding amount.

The motion judge rejected the appellants' defences that the monies were a gift, that they did not understand the mortgage despite receiving independent legal advice, that they signed under duress, and that the transaction was unconscionable.

On appeal, the appellants limited their argument to the quantum of the judgment, challenging the motion judge's reliance on Schedule A for determining the amount due.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error and dismissed the appeal.

Following an earlier endorsement deciding a family law motion, the court addressed costs.

The successful party sought full recovery costs of $20,800, while the opposing party argued that no costs should be awarded or that they should be reduced.

The court dismissed a request for leave to file reply submissions on costs and held that settlement discussions during mediation were protected by privilege and should not be referenced.

Finding that the unsuccessful party had behaved unreasonably in the underlying proceedings, the court ordered costs above partial indemnity but reduced the requested amount as disproportionate.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded, payable by set-off against any amounts owing or otherwise at final judgment or settlement.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking a stay of an Ontario family law proceeding on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction over divorce and custody issues.

The court examined jurisdiction under s. 3(1) of the Divorce Act and ss. 22, 23, 25, and 40 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The moving party argued that the child’s habitual residence and the parties’ last common habitual residence were in British Columbia and that the other province was the more appropriate forum.

The court found the applicant had not established ordinary residence in Ontario for the required period and that the statutory criteria for exercising jurisdiction under the CLRA were not satisfied.

The proceeding was stayed and the child was ordered returned to British Columbia.