Ramsay

Following a previous endorsement granting the respondent's motion for an extension of time to file a financial statement, the court received written submissions on costs.

The court had ordered costs payable to the applicant as a term of indulgence rather than for bad faith.

The court fixed the costs of the motion at $1,500, payable forthwith by the respondent.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a financial statement in the context of an underlying motion to change access and child support.

The responding party opposed the extension, arguing the moving party should be barred from further participation due to his failure to provide financial disclosure or file tax returns for three years.

The court granted the extension to prevent prejudice to the children, but imposed conditions including costs and a strict deadline for a settlement conference.

The plaintiff brought an action to invalidate her late mother's 2007 will, which left the entire estate to the defendant, her brother.

The plaintiff alleged the will was the product of undue influence.

The court reviewed the history of the mother's changing wills and powers of attorney, the strained relationship between the plaintiff and the mother, and the mother's diminished capacity.

The court found that while there were suspicious circumstances, the mother had her own reasons to disinherit the plaintiff and retained a strong will.

The court concluded the 2007 will was the product of the mother's own volition and dismissed the action.

The applicant father brought a motion to increase his access to the parties' three-year-old child.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer had conducted an investigation and recommended a gradual increase in access, noting that the father's doctor had no concerns about his pain medication management.

The respondent mother opposed the increase, citing ongoing concerns about the father's prescription medication use.

The court found the mother's concerns were unfounded and contrary to objective medical evidence, and granted the motion to increase the father's access.

The parties separated in 2011, with previous orders settling divorce, custody, access, and child support.

The court addressed outstanding issues of property division, spousal support, and child support enforcement.

The court ordered the reintroduction of the Family Responsibility Office for child support enforcement.

The respondent was awarded $7,500 in lump sum compensatory spousal support, to be paid from the applicant's share of the matrimonial home proceeds.

The applicant was also ordered to split his pension with the respondent.

The applicant buyer and respondent seller entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for commercial real estate.

The agreement included a financing condition that required the buyer to pay a second deposit 'at the time' of notifying the seller that the condition was waived.

The buyer waived the condition late in the evening on the deadline date but did not provide the second deposit until the following afternoon.

The seller took the position that the agreement was terminated.

The court found that, in the context of the factual matrix and the 'time is of the essence' clause, the parties intended for the deposit to be paid contemporaneously with the waiver.

The buyer's application for specific performance was dismissed, and the seller's application for a declaration that the agreement was void was granted.

The applicant sought declarations that a regulation prohibiting abusive or insulting language in Niagara Parks infringed his freedom of expression under the Charter, after he was charged for swearing at police officers while holding a profane political sign.

The court held that the regulation was not vague or overbroad, and that given the historical and actual function of the park as a natural and tourist attraction, abusive language was likely not protected speech.

Alternatively, any infringement was justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant brought a motion to find the respondent in civil contempt of court for allegedly breaching a consent order.

The order required the respondent to purchase a certified, e-tested car with a book value of not less than $5,000 for the applicant.

The applicant argued the provided car was appraised at $500, while the respondent, who is in the car business, testified that the value of the car plus the parts and his labour exceeded $5,000.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the elements of civil contempt, including clear and unequivocal terms and wilful disobedience, were not established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The self-represented plaintiff sought $2 million in damages against the WSIB for refusing to pay for an elbow brace and related grievances.

The court found the statement of claim to be prolix, incoherent, and disclosing no known cause of action.

Furthermore, the action duplicated an ongoing appeal from the plaintiff's provincial offences convictions for misleading the WSIB.

The action was dismissed with costs.

The father brought a motion to change a child support order, seeking to terminate support retroactively to March 2012.

The child turned 18 in December 2011 and finished secondary school in March 2012.

Although the child later attended a college program, he funded it himself through grants and loans while working.

The court found the child no longer met the definition of a "child of the marriage" under the Divorce Act after March 31, 2012.

The motion was granted, child support was terminated retroactively to March 31, 2012, and the mother was ordered to repay any excess amounts paid by the father.

The accused, the principal of a salvage yard, was charged with 43 counts of possession of stolen property and three counts of fraud after police discovered numerous stolen vehicles and parts at his business and associated properties.

The Crown alleged the accused was operating a chop shop and knowingly dealing in stolen goods, while the accused claimed he was unaware the items were stolen and blamed employees and associates.

The court rejected the accused's explanations, finding overwhelming circumstantial evidence that he was deliberately running a stolen car and parts operation.

The accused was found guilty on 39 counts of possession of stolen property and two counts of fraud.

The plaintiff's action for damages was dismissed after his vacant house burned down and his insurance claim was denied.

The court determined the costs payable to the successful defendants.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis at $15,000 for the broker and $5,000 for the insurer, noting the insurer had improperly continued to charge premiums and the broker had poor record-keeping.

The applicant, charged with attempting to obstruct justice, brought an application for certiorari to quash her committal for trial and mandamus to compel the preliminary inquiry judge to re-open the inquiry.

She argued the judge erred by refusing to allow her to cross-examine the affiant of a wiretap authorization and by failing to assist her, as an unrepresented accused, in seeking to cross-examine other witnesses under s. 540(9) of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding that the preliminary inquiry judge correctly applied the Garofoli test in denying the cross-examination of the affiant and did not exceed his jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the court found no denial of natural justice regarding the unrepresented applicant, as she had explicitly declined to call evidence or make submissions when given the opportunity.

The plaintiff bank moved for summary judgment on two mortgage loans, a line of credit, an overdraft loan, and a credit card.

The defendant, representing himself, raised several defences, including that he had repaid the loan with an EFT requisition, that the contract lacked consideration, and various pseudolegal arguments regarding promissory notes and bills of exchange.

The court found that the EFT requisition was dishonoured and rejected all of the defendant's legal arguments as meritless.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff with substantial indemnity costs.

The accused applicant sought extraordinary relief to quash a preliminary inquiry into a sexual assault charge and have it recommence before a different judge.

The applicant argued the preliminary inquiry judge created a reasonable apprehension of bias by expressing a tentative view on the sufficiency of the evidence and then continuing the inquiry as a discovery in his absence.

The Superior Court granted the application, finding that while expressing a tentative view alone does not create bias, proceeding as a discovery immediately afterward gave the appearance of a firm view.

Furthermore, the court held that under the Criminal Code, a preliminary inquiry judge must be present to hear the evidence and cannot allow the inquiry to proceed in their absence without consent.