Ramsay

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action moved to amend her statement of claim to add a related corporation as a co-defendant.

The court found that the proposed defendant operated from the same address, used the same personnel, and shared legal counsel with the named defendant.

Applying the test for misnomer, the court concluded that the proposed defendant would have known the claim was directed at it.

The motion to amend the statement of claim was granted.

The Crown brought a bail review after the accused, an American national, was released on bail following his arrest at the border for smuggling three handguns and ammunition in hidden compartments.

The reviewing judge found that the initial justice gave excessive weight to the accused's lack of a criminal record and insufficient weight to the seriousness of the offence and the strong probability of conviction.

The court concluded that detention was necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice under the tertiary ground.

The release order was vacated and the accused was ordered detained.

The accused applied under s. 520 of the Criminal Code to review a detention order.

The accused presented new alibi evidence suggesting he was in another city at the time of one of the alleged offences.

However, the court noted that if the alibi were true, the accused was simultaneously in breach of two recognizances.

The court found that the impact of the new evidence on the probability of conviction was balanced by its negative impact on the court's ability to trust the accused to comply with release terms.

The application was dismissed.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place a four-year-old child in extended society care without access for the purpose of adoption.

The parents opposed the motion, proposing alternative plans of care.

The court applied the principles of summary judgment in the child protection context and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court determined that the parents' plans were not viable due to a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and failure to utilize offered resources.

The court granted the society's motion, ordering extended care without parental access, but allowed access for the child's half-sister.

The accused brought pre-trial motions to exclude evidence in a drug trafficking prosecution involving heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, and psilocybin.

The accused challenged the sufficiency of the search warrants for two motel rooms, sought leave to cross-examine the affiant, and alleged Charter breaches regarding unlawful detention, strip searches, and delayed implementation of the right to counsel.

The court dismissed all motions, finding the warrants sufficient, the detention and strip searches justified, and that while the right to counsel was breached by delay, no evidence was obtained as a result of that breach.

Following cross-motions where success was divided, both parties sought costs.

The court found that the applicant acted in bad faith by seeking a last-minute adjournment and bringing meritless motions to prolong her retention of the matrimonial home.

The respondent was awarded costs of $50,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, which included a reduction to reflect the applicant's success on support issues.

The parties separated after a nine-year relationship and seven-year marriage.

The applicant sought sole custody, no access for the respondent, child and spousal support, and a restraining order due to the respondent's volatile behaviour when intoxicated.

The court granted the applicant sole custody and issued a restraining order, but allowed the respondent supervised access and reconciliation counselling.

Child support was ordered based on the respondent's current income, spousal support was terminated, and retroactive support was ordered for the period following separation.

The parties are neighbours involved in a dispute over rights of way.

The respondents brought a motion under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 to stay the applications pending arbitration, relying on an agreement that disputes over maintenance expenses or the nature of use of the rights of way shall be arbitrated.

The court found that the core dispute was about the existence of the rights of way, not their maintenance or nature of use.

The motion to stay was dismissed, except for one alternative claim regarding minimum use guidelines.

The applicant was previously successful in her application for dependant support from her late spouse's estate.

She sought costs from the respondent sister, who had contested the application and made unfounded allegations of misappropriation.

The respondent sought costs from the estate.

The court noted that while the litigation arose partly because the intestate failed to make adequate provision for his spouse, awarding costs from the estate would effectively penalize the successful applicant, who was awarded the entire residue.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $13,500.

The applicant, the common law spouse of the intestate for approximately two decades, applied for support from the estate under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The intestate died suddenly, leaving an estate of modest value and no other dependants.

The court found that the intestate had not made adequate provision for the applicant's proper support, considering her age, health, and accustomed standard of living.

Applying the moral duty framework, the court ordered the entire residue of the estate to be conveyed to the applicant.

The defendants brought a motion to strike 34 paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim for failing to comply with the rules of pleading.

The plaintiff's action alleged excessive force and unlawful arrest during a mental health apprehension.

The court found that the impugned paragraphs breached the rules of pleading by including irrelevant facts, pleading evidence, containing scandalous or argumentative statements, and making detailed legal arguments.

The motion was granted, the offending paragraphs were struck, and the plaintiff was granted leave to amend.

The respondent sought costs of $15,000 following a motion where he was successful on the issues of partition and sale of the matrimonial home and child access, but unsuccessful on temporary spousal support and the quantum of child support.

The applicant argued that the parties should bear their own costs.

The court found that the respondent was successful on the most important issues and awarded him costs, discounted to $7,500 to reflect the mixed results.

The costs were ordered to be paid forthwith or deducted from the applicant's share of the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant mother sought temporary orders for child support and a restrictive parenting schedule, while the respondent father sought increased parenting time, partition and sale of the matrimonial home, and spousal support.

The court expanded the father's parenting time to three days a week, finding the mother had unreasonably restricted his access despite his capability.

The court ordered the immediate partition and sale of the matrimonial home, finding no prejudice to the mother's equalization claims, and ordered her to pay $1,000 monthly in occupation rent.

The father was ordered to pay $21,600 in retroactive child support and $500 monthly in ongoing child support, with his spousal support claim dismissed.

Following a successful motion to cite the responding corporation for contempt of court, the plaintiff sought full indemnity costs.

The court awarded costs of $9,171.05 on a full indemnity scale against the corporation due to its reprehensible actions in deliberately contravening court orders.

The court declined to order costs against an individual who was not involved in the motion.

The plaintiff sued her insurer for bad faith, negligence, and fraud in the administration of her statutory accident benefits claim following a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant insurer brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the statement of claim, arguing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) had exclusive jurisdiction under section 280 of the Insurance Act.

The court agreed, finding that the essential character of the dispute concerned the denial of accident benefits, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the LAT regardless of how the claim is legally characterized.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

The defendant moved to set aside a $6 million default judgment entered against her.

The plaintiffs had sued the defendant and others for misconduct related to the purchase of life insurance policies.

The court found that while the defendant did not bring the motion promptly and lacked a good explanation for her default, she had an arguable defence on the merits regarding her personal liability as a corporate officer.

Balancing the factors, the court set aside the default judgment on terms, requiring the defendant to pay costs thrown away and the costs of the motion, and allowing the writ of execution to remain on title.

The defendant published a report criticizing the governance and contracting practices of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority.

The Authority, its former CAO, and a contractor sued the defendant for defamation.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the actions under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act (s. 137.1).

The court dismissed the Authority's action, holding that a government entity cannot sue an individual for defamation.

The court dismissed the remaining plaintiffs' actions because they failed to show the defendant had no valid defence, as the expressions were made on occasions of qualified privilege without malice.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 2008 spousal support order, seeking to reduce his obligation to nil retroactively and ongoing due to his asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

The court found no basis for a retroactive reduction, noting a similar motion was dismissed in 2014.

However, accepting that the applicant's condition had worsened and he would reach the expected retirement age of 65 the following year, the court ordered that spousal support be terminated effective June 30, 2018.

In a divorce proceeding, the respondent father moved to vary child support based on a unilateral change he made to the access schedule, keeping the younger child overnight on Sundays.

The applicant mother cross-moved to enforce the terms of their memorandum of understanding.

The court granted the mother's motion and dismissed the father's, finding no pressing need for the unilateral change and no justification for a change in child support.

The Children's Aid Society moved for temporary care and custody of a newborn child pending its appeal of a motion judge's order that placed the child with the parents under supervision.

The Society argued the motion judge erred by omitting a statement of the plans of care and sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding the mother's mental health and the paternal grandfather's history of allowing a sex offender to reside in his home.

Applying a modified test for a stay pending appeal, the court found a serious issue to be tried based on the fresh evidence and concluded that the risk of irreparable harm to the child outweighed the harm of temporary separation from the parents.

The motion was granted, and the child was placed in the Society's care pending the appeal.