Rasaiah

The defendant in a defamation action brought a motion seeking an order for the plaintiffs to provide particulars of their statement of claim and to produce documents for inspection under Rule 30.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court partially granted the motion for particulars, ordering the plaintiffs to provide specific details regarding alleged defamatory comments and special damages.

However, the court dismissed the request to inspect documents, finding that the court has discretion to limit such requests based on relevance and proportionality, and that the requested documents were either already in the defendant's possession, publicly available, or not specific documents within the meaning of the rule.

The applicant sought sole custody, child support, equalization, and a restraining order in an uncontested trial after the respondent failed to file an answer or provide financial disclosure.

The court granted the applicant sole custody of the parties' special needs child, with no access to the respondent.

Income was imputed to the respondent at $50,000 for child support purposes, and he was ordered to pay table support and 75% of section 7 expenses.

The court also ordered an equalization payment of $11,625 to the applicant and issued a restraining order against the respondent due to his past abusive behaviour and threats.

The parties separated and the respondent father had been exercising supervised access to their two-year-old child.

Both parties brought motions for interim relief, with the hearing focused on whether the respondent's access should be changed to unsupervised and expanded to include overnights.

The court found that the respondent had demonstrated the ability to provide quality care for the child and that it was in the child's best interests to transition to unsupervised, expanded access, including overnight visits.

The plaintiffs brought an action for defamation against a lawyer and the law firm with which she practiced in association.

The defendant law firm brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against it, arguing it was not vicariously liable for the lawyer's actions.

The court found that the lawyer was not a partner or employee of the firm, and the firm did not control her practice.

The firm's letterhead and marketing materials clearly indicated she was 'Practicing in Association not in Partnership'.

The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action against the law firm.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and supervised access for the respondent father in an uncontested trial.

The parties separated after a long relationship, and the respondent had not seen the children since separation.

The applicant raised concerns about the respondent's mental health, anger management, and abusive behaviour, noting he was subject to a recognizance prohibiting contact with her and their eldest child.

The court granted the applicant sole custody and ordered that any access by the respondent be supervised at a supervised access facility.

No child support was ordered as the respondent's income was below the threshold, but he was ordered to provide notice of any employment changes.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and equalization in an uncontested trial after the respondent father's answer was struck.

The court granted the mother sole custody and ordered that the father's access be supervised by the paternal grandparents due to his ongoing substance abuse issues.

The court imputed the father's income at $49,920 and ordered ongoing and retroactive child support.

The mother owed an equalization payment to the father, but the court allowed her to set off the father's child support arrears and outstanding costs awards against the equalization payment, resulting in the father owing the mother the remaining balance of child support arrears.

The plaintiff, a former bank manager, sued his financial advisors for negligence, misrepresentation, and undue influence after his commuted pension investments depleted faster than anticipated.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of his losses and the defendants' alleged role by 2010 at the latest, but did not commence his action until 2014.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the limitation period defence.

The respondent husband brought a motion to change a prior order that granted the applicant wife exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The husband argued the prior order was made without adequate notice and that he was unable to attend the hearing.

The court found that notice was adequate and, although the husband had a satisfactory reason for missing the hearing, declined to return exclusive possession to him.

The court found the husband lacked the financial stability to maintain the home and had a history of neglecting the property, making it necessary for the wife to retain possession to preserve the asset for sale.

The defendant owner of a motor vehicle brought a motion for default judgment on a crossclaim against the co-defendant driver following the settlement of the plaintiff's personal injury action.

The driver, who was operating the vehicle with a suspended license and caused the collision, failed to defend the crossclaim and was noted in default.

The court granted the motion, finding the settlement reasonable and ordering the driver to fully indemnify the owner for the $205,000 settlement amount plus costs.

The defendant brought a motion for the production of notes and records from the plaintiff's counsel's file.

The plaintiff had previously moved to amend his statement of claim to withdraw an admission that he resigned, alleging his counsel made a drafting error and that he had actually been terminated.

The court found that by putting his communications with his counsel into issue to explain the alleged error, the plaintiff waived solicitor-client privilege over those specific communications.

The motion was granted in part, ordering the production of direct communications between the plaintiff and his counsel regarding how his employment ended.

The plaintiff and defendant, mother and daughter, were joint registered owners of a residential property.

After their relationship broke down, the plaintiff sought an order for the sale of the property and equal division of proceeds.

The defendant claimed sole beneficial ownership based on resulting trust, arguing the plaintiff was merely a co-signor, or alternatively claimed unjust enrichment for unequal contributions.

The court found the plaintiff was a true joint legal and beneficial owner, having contributed to the down payment and assumed mortgage liability.

The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding juristic reason for any unequal contributions based on their shared living arrangements and agreements.

The property was ordered sold with proceeds divided equally, subject to specific accounting adjustments for joint debts.

The applicant sought interim spousal support in the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines ($1,510/month), while the respondent proposed an amount just below the low range ($1,000/month).

The court considered the applicant's primary care role for two children with autism, her limited income, her plans to retrain, and the respondent's ability to pay.

Finding that the applicant had established a need and the respondent had the means, the court ordered interim spousal support at the mid-range amount of $1,510 per month, along with interim child support.

The mother brought a motion seeking the return of disputed chattels from the matrimonial home, where the father currently resides.

The father opposed the motion, arguing he needed the furniture to care for the children during his access and potential future custody, and noted he was facing domestic assault charges.

The court dismissed the mother's request for the disputed items, finding no urgent need and that the children were adequately furnished at her residence.

The court did, however, order the return of certain agreed-upon items to the mother.

The applicant mother brought an uncontested motion to change a 2012 Alberta order regarding custody, access, and child support.

The respondent father had moved to Europe, ceased exercising access, and failed to disclose his income or pay appropriate child support.

The court granted the mother sole custody, ordered that any access by the father be supervised, and imputed the father's income at $110,000.

The court also ordered the father to pay ongoing and retroactive table support and section 7 expenses dating back to June 2012, and permitted the mother to travel outside Canada with the children without the father's consent.

The children's aid society brought a motion for an interim order pending appeal to stay a lower court decision that permitted the paternal grandparents to supervise the father's access to two young children.

The father had been the subject of sexual abuse allegations involving other children, and the society argued the grandparents were uninformed and uncooperative.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay and considered the best interests of the children.

Finding serious issues to be tried on appeal, including factual errors by the motion judge, and a risk of irreparable harm given the children's young ages and the grandparents' failure to review the evidence of risk, the court granted the society's motion and ordered that access be supervised by the society pending the appeal.

The applicant, the owner and operator of a trucking company, sought certiorari to quash his committal to stand trial for criminal negligence causing death.

The charge arose after one of his drivers, who had been driving in excess of permitted hours and falsifying log books, crossed the center line and caused a fatal collision.

The applicant argued there was insufficient evidence that he was the directing mind of the company or that his actions contributed to the collision.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding there was sufficient circumstantial and direct evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could convict the applicant as a party or principal to the offence.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought an action against the defendant general contractor for unpaid contract balances and extras on a hotel construction project.

The parties agreed to bifurcate the trial to determine the limitations issue first.

The plaintiff argued the limitation period did not begin until a 2009 judgment in a related action, claiming he believed a set-off agreement existed and that he was unsophisticated in legal matters.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge and records to discover his claim by the fall of 2007 at the latest.

As the claim was issued in April 2010, more than two years after the claim was discoverable, the action was dismissed as statute-barred.

The appellant mother appealed a summary judgment order making her child a Crown ward with no access, and placing her other child with a paternal aunt.

The mother argued that her recovery from substance abuse and stabilization of her mental health created a genuine issue for trial regarding her fitness to parent.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly applied the test for summary judgment and that the evidence, including parental capacity assessments and the mother's inconsistent progress, supported the conclusion that there was no genuine issue for trial.

The respondent, Roswita Zgraja, brought a motion seeking advanced costs, compensation, and the right to cross-examine the applicant on his affidavits in a guardianship dispute.

The court adjourned the claim for advanced costs and dismissed the claim for compensation without prejudice, noting it should be brought by way of application rather than a motion.

The court granted the request to cross-examine the applicant, finding that despite the expiration of previous timetables, the moving party had made efforts to comply and the evidence sought was relevant to allegations of misappropriation.