Renu J. Mandhane

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) regarding the applicable legislative and policy framework for a subdivision development proposal.

The LPAT had determined that the current policy regime applied, relying on the retroactive application of s. 22.1 of the Planning Act to establish the request date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the LPAT's determination involved questions of mixed fact and law, and that the issues raised were not of sufficient general or public importance to warrant the court's attention.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for interim parenting time with his two young children.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, citing concerns about the children's exposure to family violence and the father's erratic behaviour.

The court applied the newly amended Divorce Act, emphasizing a human rights-based approach and the impact of family violence on the children's best interests.

The court ordered a slight increase in the father's parenting time, largely adopting the mother's proposed schedule with strict conditions, but allowing contact with the children's half-sibling.

The Public Guardian and Trustee, acting as litigation guardian for Jack Dutton, sought an order to sell a jointly owned condominium without the consent of his wife, Mabel Dutton, due to financial necessity for their long-term care.

Mabel opposed the sale and challenged the validity of a Power of Attorney and a prior Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS).

The court found the APS invalid due to lack of Mabel's consent to the extension of the closing date.

However, applying the Partition Act, the court ordered the sale of the condo, dispensing with Mabel's consent, as it was in Jack's best interest and Mabel's opposition was not sufficient to deny the prima facie right to partition and sale.

The court refused to order specific performance of the invalid APS to the original buyers.

The defendant, Visiting Angels Inc., moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim alleging conversion, negligence, vicarious liability, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The claims arose from alleged theft and damage of items during a home cleaning service.

The plaintiff opposed the motion and sought to transfer the matter to Small Claims Court.

The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial as the plaintiff failed to provide reliable evidence to substantiate her claims of ownership, loss, or damage, or to link the alleged torts to the defendant.

The applicant sought an interim restraining order against the respondent, citing past abuse, criminal convictions for assault and threats, and continued controlling behaviour since separation.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for unsupervised access and sought to adjourn the applicant's motion.

The court granted an interim restraining order against the respondent regarding communication, contact, and proximity to the applicant, finding a legitimate basis for her fear based on his past conduct and controlling actions post-separation.

However, the court refused to grant a restraining order in relation to the children, finding no cogent evidence of ongoing risk to them, especially given supervised access.

The respondent's cross-motion for unsupervised access was not addressed, and his request for adjournment was denied.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim relief seeking increased access to the children, the sale of the matrimonial home, and the return of belongings.

The respondent father opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion for retroactive and ongoing child support.

The court granted the mother's request for increased access, finding it in the children's best interests to spend roughly equal time with both parents.

The court also ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home to allow the mother to secure appropriate housing.

The mother was ordered to pay interim child support, including arrears, given her employment and shared custody arrangement.

The applicant mother sought the return of her child to the Czech Republic pursuant to the Hague Convention after the respondent father removed the child to Canada without her consent.

The father initially opposed the return, claiming the child's habitual residence was Canada and that the child objected to returning.

An independent assessment revealed the child wished to return to the Czech Republic.

The court found the child was habitually resident in the Czech Republic, the mother had custody rights, and the removal was wrongful.

The court ordered the immediate return of the child to the Czech Republic.

The moving party sought to validate her marriage to an elderly man with worsening dementia, which was challenged by the responding party, the man's son.

The son had previously obtained a guardianship order in the wife's absence and alleged the marriage was predatory.

The court found that the son failed to adduce sufficient evidence that his father lacked the capacity to marry on the date of the wedding.

The court placed little weight on retrospective expert assessments and relied on direct evidence of the couple's long-term relationship and the father's understanding of the marriage.

The marriage was declared valid, and the son was ordered to pay $50,000 in full indemnity costs due to his egregious conduct.

The plaintiff was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision.

The owner of the vehicle, a rental car company (2180571 Ontario Ltd. operating as "Practicar"), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim against it, arguing it was not vicariously liable for the driver's negligence.

Co-defendants, The Personal Insurance Company and PAFCO Insurance Company, opposed the motion, seeking a finding of vicarious liability against Practicar.

The court found that the individual who rented the car, despite using a fraudulent identity, was a "lessee" under the Highway Traffic Act.

Consequently, her consent to the negligent driver operating the vehicle was deemed the owner's consent, making Practicar vicariously liable.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and claims against the insurers were dismissed.

The plaintiff claimed beneficial ownership of two residential properties legally owned by the defendant, relying on alleged express trust documents or, alternatively, an equitable trust.

The court found the express trust documents were forgeries.

However, based on the parties' joint venture to flip the properties and their respective financial contributions to acquisition, maintenance, and improvements, the court imposed constructive trusts.

The plaintiff was awarded an 81 percent beneficial interest in one property and a 32 percent beneficial interest in the other to remedy unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend his Statement of Claim to include a claim for unpaid commission from 2016 and to compel the defendant to produce audited financial statements for 2016, 2017, and 2018.

The court granted the motion to amend, finding that the limitation period had not expired because the plaintiff only discovered the potential claim during mediation.

The court also ordered the production of the financial statements, subject to confidentiality conditions, as they were highly relevant to calculating the plaintiff's commission and the summary auditor's letter provided by the defendant was insufficient.

The applicant, the official agent for a federal candidate, brought an application to extend the time to file election returns under the Canada Elections Act.

The returns were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and miscommunications with an accounting firm.

The court first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the matter in Orangeville despite the riding being in Toronto, noting the urgency and lack of opposition.

The court granted the extension, finding the failure to file on time was not deliberate and the applicant had exercised due diligence.

The plaintiff corporation brought an action for the tort of conversion against the defendant, who received millions of dollars in Apple products purchased fraudulently by the plaintiff's employee using corporate funds.

The defendant did not attend the trial.

The court found the defendant liable for conversion, as he received, transferred, and sold the products without the plaintiff's permission, thereby negating the plaintiff's possessory interest.

The court awarded damages of over $2.7 million, plus prejudgment interest and costs, and extended a Mareva injunction against the defendant.

Following a family law trial where the respondent mother obtained sole custody and the applicant father obtained more generous access, the parties could not agree on costs.

The mother sought substantial indemnity costs based on her success and an offer to settle.

The court found divided success on the issue of access but noted the father's unreasonable conduct during litigation.

The court awarded the mother partial indemnity costs in the amount of $18,126.84.

The unmarried parents of a five-year-old child both sought sole custody and primary residency following a high-conflict separation.

The mother had been the de facto custodial parent since separation.

The court found that the parents' inability to communicate necessitated a sole custody order.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted the mother sole custody and primary residency, noting her role as the primary caregiver and her sound judgment regarding the child's care.

The father was granted regular access and ordered to pay child support.

The Mother brought a motion to transfer the Father's divorce proceeding from Ontario to British Columbia, arguing that B.C. was the children's most substantial connection.

Despite Ontario having prima facie jurisdiction, the court exercised its discretion under s. 6(1) of the Divorce Act to transfer the entire proceeding to B.C. The court found it was in the children's best interests to remain in B.C., considering their current residence, schooling, extended family support, and the Father's acquiescence to their relocation.

The Father's legal steps to return the children to Ontario and obtain custody were deemed largely tactical.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for wrongful dismissal, arguing that the termination clause in his employment contract was unenforceable.

The court found the termination clause violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000, by improperly combining notice and severance pay and by contracting around the "willful misconduct" standard for just cause, rendering the entire contract void.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded the plaintiff four months of common law reasonable notice, plus benefits, less amounts already paid and mitigated earnings, but declined to award a discretionary bonus.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought a divorce, a declaration of no equalization payments, and costs following an uncontested trial.

The respondent failed to participate or provide financial disclosure.

The court granted the divorce and declared no equalization payments were due, finding it unconscionable under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act to award the respondent an equalization payment.

This decision was based on the short marriage, the applicant's sole ownership and maintenance of the matrimonial home (purchased before marriage with a gift), loans provided by the applicant to the respondent, and the respondent's deliberate failure to disclose financial information.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside default judgments and noting in default.

The court found the default judgments were irregularly obtained because the plaintiff's claim for damages was unliquidated, requiring additional evidence beyond the statement of claim to fix the amount owing.

Consequently, the default judgments were set aside as of right.

However, the court exercised its discretion to decline setting aside the noting in default, citing the defendants' significant responsibility for delay and their "wait and see" approach to the litigation.

The plaintiff was directed to bring a motion for default judgment before a judge.

The applicant sought divorce, custody, child support, equalization of net family property, and costs in an uncontested trial.

The respondent, who had relocated to Egypt and failed to file an answer, was not present.

The court granted the applicant sole custody of the child, ordered equalization of net family property, vested the respondent's vehicle in the applicant as partial payment of costs, granted the divorce, and awarded the applicant $20,000 in costs.