R. J. Harper

The applicants were successful in their application for the partition and sale of an investment property.

They sought costs on a partial or full indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the costs claimed, noted duplication and excessive hours, and reduced the fees by 30%.

The respondents were ordered to pay costs of $30,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The offender was found guilty of multiple sexual offences and sentencing was scheduled.

The probation officer failed to complete the requested presentence report in time, citing missing contact information, incorrect documents, and holiday schedules.

The court reviewed the statutory duties under sections 720 and 721 of the Criminal Code, emphasizing the requirement to sentence as soon as practicable.

The court found the delay was due to probation workload and holidays, not complications, and adjourned the sentencing to allow completion of the report.

The plaintiff real estate brokerage sought an interlocutory injunction to enforce restrictive covenants against several former agents who left to join a competing brokerage.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the spatial restrictions in the agreements ambiguous and the temporal limitations unreasonable.

The court also found the plaintiff did not come with clean hands, having previously breached its agreement with the lead defendant by bringing in a competing team without consultation.

The plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured an injunction.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion to permit her and the parties' 8-year-old child to travel to England and Scotland, and to dispense with the applicant father's consent.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking urgent orders for parenting time and declarations that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act supersedes the Divorce Act.

The court granted the mother's motion, finding the trip to be in the child's best interests and noting the father provided no valid reason for withholding consent.

The court dismissed the father's cross-motion as inappropriate for an urgent interim motion and adjourned the parenting issues to a case conference.

The applicant sought costs following a family law trial involving divorce, parenting, and child support.

The court found that the respondent acted in bad faith by prolonging the trial with unproven allegations of domestic violence, thereby disentitling herself to costs and exposing herself to paying a portion of the applicant's costs.

The respondent was ordered to pay $5,000 in costs to the applicant.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated after a highly conflictual relationship.

The mother made multiple allegations of domestic violence against the father, which the court found lacked credibility and corroborating evidence.

The court determined that the parents' mistrust and negative feelings were harming the children.

The court granted a divorce, awarded sole decision-making responsibility to the mother with a requirement to consult the father, and established a detailed parenting time schedule.

The father was ordered to pay child support and the parties were ordered to share section 7 expenses equally.

The applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement, alleging non-disclosure, duress, lack of understanding, and unconscionability.

The court found that both parties had independent legal advice, the applicant understood the agreement, and there was no duress.

The court also found the applicant had hidden assets and misrepresented her financial position.

Applying the Miglin framework and section 56(4) of the Family Law Act, the court upheld the agreement and dismissed the application, including the claim for retroactive child support.

The Children's Aid Society brought a child protection application regarding a 7-year-old child.

The court found the mother lacked credibility regarding her severe substance abuse issues, domestic violence instigation, and failure to comply with court orders, including driving while prohibited.

The court found the child to be in need of protection due to the risk of physical and emotional harm from the mother.

The child was ordered to remain in the care of the father for six months under CAS supervision, with the mother granted specified supervised access.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection due to the mother's volatile behaviour, severe mood swings, and history of making false allegations of physical abuse against the father's partner.

The mother had also breached publication bans by posting videos and writing a book identifying the child.

The court found the child in need of protection under the CYFSA due to the risk of physical and emotional harm in the mother's care.

The child was placed with the father for six months under Society supervision.

The court declined to order access at the Society's discretion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to delegate such discretion, and instead ordered specific supervised access for the mother.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to recover monies advanced to the defendants through a series of loans and a purported joint venture.

The defendants argued that the agreements were part of a joint venture, raised the defence of non est factum, and claimed one loan charged a criminal interest rate.

The court granted summary judgment for the loans made prior to November 12, 2017, finding no genuine issue for trial, rejecting the non est factum defence, and concluding the interest rate did not violate the Criminal Code.

However, the court found that the business dealings after November 12, 2017, which involved a joint venture, presented genuine issues requiring a trial.

The plaintiff developer and the municipality sought a permanent injunction against protesters occupying a residential development site and blocking public roads.

The court found the leader of the protesters in contempt for refusing to obey interlocutory injunctions and struck his pleadings, denying him further participation.

The court granted the permanent injunctions, finding the developer had good title, the protesters' self-help remedies and blockades were unlawful, and there was a serious risk of ongoing harm and violence.

The plaintiff developer sought a permanent injunction against protestors who occupied its lands and halted construction.

The self-proclaimed leader of the protestors, who was added as a defendant, openly defied previous interlocutory injunctions and stated his intention to continue doing so.

The court held that it was an abuse of process for a party to participate in proceedings while in flagrant contempt of court orders.

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to prohibit the defendant from further participation until he and his followers vacate the lands and comply with the court's orders.

The plaintiff developer and the municipality brought motions for interlocutory injunctions to remove protesters who had occupied a residential development site and blockaded public roads.

The protesters, asserting an indigenous land claim outside of the court process, did not participate in the proceedings.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and granted the injunctions, finding serious issues to be tried, irreparable harm to the developer and the community, and that the balance of convenience favoured upholding the rule of law.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2011 consent order to terminate or reduce spousal support and health benefits payable to the respondent mother, and sought a restraining order.

The father had lost his employment after changing jobs to escape the stress of the mother's relentless campaign of disparagement and parental alienation, which included contacting his employers and posting defamatory comments on social media.

The court found a material change in circumstances, declined to impute income to the father as his job change was reasonable, and reduced spousal support to $274 per month subject to a six-month review.

The court also granted a restraining order prohibiting the mother from posting disparaging comments about the father or his partner and from coming within 500 metres of his home or workplace.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add a snow removal contractor as a defendant in a slip and fall action, after the expiry of the two-year limitation period.

The plaintiffs relied on the doctrine of discoverability, arguing they only learned of the contractor's involvement upon receiving the statement of defence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the plaintiffs exercised reasonable diligence to identify the contractor within the limitation period, as they failed to make any inquiries about snow removal services.

The defendants brought a motion to amend their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim to add a new party and claim damages for negligent misrepresentation.

The plaintiff opposed the motion on the basis that the proposed claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the defendants failed to provide a sufficient evidentiary record to rebut the presumption of discoverability under section 5(2) of the Act.

The motion to amend the pleadings and add the party was dismissed.

The parties settled most issues at the outset of the trial, leaving the residency scheme for their 11-year-old child as the sole issue.

The respondent father sought a week-about residency scheme for the child, relying on the child's expressed preference to spend more time with him.

The court found that the applicant mother had been the primary caregiver and provided a stable environment, while the father's proposed plan had many contingencies and lacked evidence regarding child care assistance.

The court held that the child's views and preferences were outweighed by other factors under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, and ordered that the existing residency scheme remain in place, subject to a future review.

The defendants (moving parties) sought an interlocutory injunction against the plaintiffs (responding parties) arising from the termination of a distribution agreement.

The court found that the agreement had been terminated with reasonable notice in August 2015.

The court dismissed the motion for an injunction, holding that the moving parties failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as they delayed over two years in seeking relief and failed to provide a meaningful undertaking as to damages.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the responding parties.

The father brought a motion for temporary joint custody and increased access to his two-year-old child pending an Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation.

The mother opposed the expanded access, citing concerns about the father's living arrangements, while the father raised concerns about the mother's work schedule and availability.

The court declined to make a temporary custody order but found it in the child's best interests to expand the father's access from Friday evening to Sunday afternoon.

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

The respondent father brought a motion for joint custody and primary care of the parties' two-year-old child.

The court had previously ordered the parties to submit intake forms to the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) and strongly recommended a section 112 investigation.

The applicant mother refused to submit the forms, and her counsel argued she had the right to decline the investigation.

The court found this non-compliance disturbing, drew an adverse inference against the mother, and expressed concern over her mental health issues and lack of evidence regarding the child's needs.

The court ordered both parties to submit the OCL forms within 10 days, adjourned the custody motion, and directed counsel to prepare submissions on why costs should not be awarded against the mother's counsel personally.