Randall Vincent Johns

The applicant brought two motions: (1) seeking interim injunctive relief including orders to restrain respondents from acting as directors, restricting access to corporate bank accounts, preserving corporate records, freezing personal assets, granting administrator-level access to corporate systems, and obtaining a Norwich order for bank records; and (2) seeking leave to commence a derivative action under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The motions arose from an oppression remedy application concerning a cannabis retail business.

The court dismissed both motions, finding the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of fraud or misappropriation, did not demonstrate irreparable harm, and failed to satisfy the balance of convenience test.

The court converted the application to an action and imposed a litigation timetable.

The Plaintiff brought a motion to strike portions of the Defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, arguing they disclosed no reasonable cause of action (Rule 21.01(1)(b)) or were scandalous, frivolous, and/or vexatious (Rule 25.11(b)).

The Defendant sought leave to amend its pleading to incorporate an abuse of process claim.

The court found that the Defendant failed to properly plead the essential elements of the tort of abuse of process, specifically lacking special damages.

As a result, the Plaintiff's motion to strike certain paragraphs, including a claim for punitive damages based on abuse of process, was granted, and the Defendant's proposed amendments related to the abuse of process claim were denied.

The Plaintiff was deemed the successful party on the motions and entitled to costs.

The applicant proceeded by way of an uncontested family law trial seeking divorce, spousal support, child support for an adult child, equalization of net family property, and sale of the matrimonial home.

The court attributed annual income of $125,000 to the respondent based on partial financial disclosure.

The court held that the parties’ adult child, who struggled with drug addiction, was not a “child of the marriage” within the meaning of the Divorce Act because the evidence did not establish that his condition prevented him from withdrawing from parental charge or obtaining the necessaries of life.

Spousal support was awarded at $2,313 per month retroactive to October 2011, and equalization of $124,622.50 was ordered through division of the respondent’s pension.

The matrimonial home was ordered sold with the respondent’s share charged for spousal support arrears.

The applicant brought an uncontested motion to change seeking termination of existing child and spousal support orders made following divorce.

The court reviewed the parties’ financial circumstances, including the respondent’s unemployment following the collapse of the family business and his reliance on RRSP withdrawals while retraining for new employment.

The court held that one adult child remained a "child of the marriage" due to mental health difficulties and ongoing dependency.

Spousal support and child support obligations were not terminated but were reduced to nominal amounts given the respondent’s limited present income, while support for another adult child was terminated.