Richard H. Parker

This is an appeal from a trial decision in a high-conflict matrimonial litigation case where the respondent's pleadings were struck due to willful non-compliance with disclosure orders.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's approach to evidence, refusal to recognize a constructive trust, spousal support determination, denial of a vesting order, and the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on all grounds, affirming the trial judge's discretion in probing evidence even in an uncontested trial, applying the net family property scheme, and exercising discretion regarding support, vesting orders, and costs.

The court also reaffirmed the principle that a party in willful default of court orders may be denied audience on appeal.

Following the dismissal of both the main action and the counterclaim, the court determined the costs payable to each party.

The defendant, a self-represented lawyer, was awarded $20,000 on a substantial indemnity basis for the main action, reduced from his claim due to a lack of evidence of lost remunerative opportunity.

The plaintiff was awarded $18,000 on a partial indemnity basis for successfully defending the counterclaim.

The court ordered a set-off, resulting in a net costs award of $2,000 payable to the defendant.

The corporate plaintiff by counterclaim alleged fraudulent misrepresentation and inducing breach of contract against the defendants to the counterclaim, arising from refinancing efforts on a residential property and a guarantee signed by one of the defendants.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the necessary elements for both torts, particularly regarding false representation, knowledge of falsity, intent to induce reliance, and intent to procure a breach of contract.

The counterclaim was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's order striking her statement of claim without leave to amend on two grounds: that the action was commenced beyond the applicable limitation period and that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action for civil fraud.

The appellant sought damages for fraudulent billing submissions to OHIP and alleged inability to obtain travel insurance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's own pleadings admitted discovery of the alleged fraud in 2009, which triggered the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court also addressed procedural issues regarding the improper use of rule 21.01(1)(a) to advance a limitations defence and the inappropriate reliance on rule 21.01(1)(b) after the respondents had filed a statement of defence joining issue on the material facts.

The applicant's motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for persistent failure to provide financial disclosure was granted, while the respondent's cross-motion to strike the applicant's pleadings was dismissed.

The respondent had ignored disclosure orders for three years, providing disorganized and incomplete financial information, making a contested trial impossible.

The court emphasized the critical importance of early, voluntary, and complete financial disclosure in family law proceedings and the duty of parties to promote a just outcome.

The respondent's conduct was deemed willful and egregious, warranting the striking of his pleadings.

The plaintiff contractor sued for unpaid extras on a home renovation project, while the defendant homeowners counterclaimed for deficient and incomplete work, and alleged unfair practices under the Consumer Protection Act.

The court granted the defendants leave to amend their counterclaim to increase the amount and rely on the CPA.

The court found that most of the plaintiff's claimed extras were not part of the original contract and, despite the lack of written agreements as required by the CPA, it would be inequitable for the defendants to benefit without payment, applying s. 93(2) of the CPA.

The court also found some deficiencies in the plaintiff's work and awarded damages to the defendants, but dismissed their claims of unfair practices under the CPA and their personal claim against the contractor's principal.

Damages were set off, resulting in a net judgment for the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed convictions for assault and assault with a weapon arising from a brief domestic confrontation involving his teenage daughter.

The trial judge found that the appellant angrily threw an empty plastic bottle and grabbed the complainant, rejecting a defence based on parental corrective force under s. 43 of the Criminal Code.

On appeal, the court held that the trial judge failed to properly analyze whether the thrown bottle constituted a weapon and whether injury was reasonably foreseeable.

The court also found that the trial judge failed to properly apply the reasonable doubt framework in assessing the appellant’s evidence and the corrective force defence.

The convictions were set aside and acquittals entered, as a new trial was not in the public interest.

This is a costs decision following a trial in a family law matter involving custody, access, and child support.

The applicant (mother) sought full recovery of costs in the amount of $7,880 and requested that the entire sum be enforceable as child support.

The respondent (father) opposed any costs award.

The court found the mother was the successful party, having obtained sole custody and child support based on her position at trial, while the father was unsuccessful on all his requests.

The court awarded costs of $7,200 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, with $1,800 allocated as enforceable support.

The father was ordered not to initiate further proceedings without proof of payment.

In a family law trial concerning custody, access, and child support, the court granted sole custody of three children to the mother and rejected the father's request for equal parenting time.

The father's primary motivation for seeking equal parenting time appeared to be financial rather than child-focused.

The court found the mother to be a reliable, flexible, and child-focused parent, while the father demonstrated controlling behavior, disrespect for court orders, and inappropriate communications with the children about the mother and maternal grandmother.

The court awarded child support based on the father's actual income of $80,333 per annum, set arrears at $6,684.31, and ordered ongoing monthly support of $1,535.

The court also established a detailed access schedule providing the father with alternate weekend access and specified holiday time.