R. John Harper

The appellants, tenants in a mobile home park, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision evicting them for seriously impairing the safety of others.

The eviction was based on the tenants keeping an unlawfully large number of unvaccinated feral cats, which had attacked a property manager's dog.

The appellants argued the Board erred by relying on the cats' unvaccinated status, as it was not explicitly listed as a ground in the eviction notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the ground for eviction was serious impairment of safety, and the unvaccinated status of the cats was merely evidence supporting that ground.

The majority held that the Board's decision was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found his injuries from a motor vehicle accident fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied two treatment plans for assessments.

The Divisional Court held that the adjudicator made no error of law and reasonably concluded that the appellant failed to meet his burden of proving entitlement to benefits beyond the MIG cap.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant charities in two related class actions appealed a case management judge's decision declining to continue a protective order over the identities of potential class members who opted out.

The appellants argued the judge failed to consider whether the deemed or implied undertaking rules applied to this information.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the deemed undertaking rule under Rule 30.1.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure applies to the names and numbers of opt-outs disclosed by the plaintiffs' counsel to the defendants' counsel, as this information is relevant and discoverable.

The landlord appealed a trial decision finding that the tenant properly terminated a residential lease and that the landlord was not entitled to charge administrative fees as part of common area and maintenance (CAM) expenses under a commercial lease.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tenant provided notice in the manner required by the written terms of the lease, and that there was no express or implied term authorizing the landlord to unilaterally charge administrative fees.

The trial judge's interpretation of the lease was subject to deference and revealed no palpable and overriding error.

The maternal grandparents applied for custody of their 9-year-old granddaughter following the death of the child's mother.

The father, who had access under a previous court order, also sought custody.

The court found that the child had lived primarily with her maternal grandparents and had a strong attachment to them, and that moving her would cause further trauma.

The court also noted the father's history of alcohol abuse and the high level of conflict between the parties.

Sole custody was awarded to the maternal grandparents, with a specified access schedule for the father, subject to a prohibition on alcohol consumption during access.

The father was also ordered to pay retroactive child support.

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 plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction requiring the defendants to vacate and cease farming lands transferred by Ontario to a bare trustee for the benefit of the Six Nations community as represented by the elected council.

The responding party asserted a lease from the hereditary governance structure, individual s. 35 rights, procedural impropriety in the eviction decision, and lack of authority in the elected council to control off-reserve lands.

The court held that consultation obligations had been met through years of main table negotiations, that any Aboriginal or treaty rights were collective rather than individually enforceable in this proceeding, and that no lawful leasehold or possessory entitlement had been established.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald framework, the court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm from continuing trespass and interference with governance and land use planning, and a balance of convenience favouring the title holders.

The interlocutory injunction was granted.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing a professional negligence action against accountants and a former employee on the basis that the claim was out of time.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and the discoverability provisions in ss. 4 and 5(1) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

In the context of an ongoing CRA reassessment and tax appeal, the court held the plaintiff reasonably relied on professional advice and could not reasonably have known he had a cause of action until at least December 2012.

The action, issued in September 2013, was therefore not statute-barred, and the motion was dismissed.

The father brought a motion to change child support, and the mother responded with claims for section 7 expenses and summer child support for their adult child in university.

The court refused to impute rental income to the mother, finding she netted no income from the property.

The court ordered the father to pay his proportionate share of the younger child's gymnastics expenses, rejecting his claim of impecuniosity due to his frequent vacations.

The court also ordered the father to pay table child support during the summer months when the adult child resides with the mother, finding the usual approach inappropriate for the school year but applicable during the summer break.

This trial addressed complex family law issues including custody and access for two children, spousal and child support, and division of property.

The Applicant mother's allegations of spousal and child abuse were largely rejected by the court, which found her claims fabricated and her actions detrimental to the children's relationship with the Respondent father.

The court prioritized the children's best interests, emphasizing the importance of maintaining relationships with both parents and siblings.

Custody of one child was awarded to the father, and a plan for counselling was ordered to re-establish the other child's relationship with the father.

The mother was found to be underemployed, and her income was imputed for child support purposes.

Spousal support was denied due to a lack of financial interweaving and interdependence during the cohabitation.

Property division for the jointly held home was limited to the mother's direct financial contribution.

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.

Johan Thiessen was convicted by a jury of two counts of possession of cocaine and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and parity, noting the serious nature and high value of the drugs involved.

Despite the accused's lack of criminal record and strong community support, his role as a facilitator by allowing his home to be used as a "stash house" demonstrated reckless disregard.

Balancing these factors against the 6-year sentences received by the main orchestrators of the trafficking scheme, the court imposed a sentence of 4.5 years incarceration, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

Following trial in a family law proceeding, the court addressed child contact, child support, a spousal support claim by the respondent, imputation of income, arrears, and the mechanics of paying an agreed equalization amount.

The court held that the powers in ss. 9 and 34 of the Family Law Act are enabling provisions available where the evidence supports their use, and in any event the issue had been sufficiently raised by the consent order leaving the mechanics of payment to the trial judge.

Applying the income-imputation framework, the court found the respondent intentionally underemployed, rejected his financial disclosure as unreliable, and imputed annual income of $68,411.

The spousal support claim was dismissed, child support and arrears were ordered, and the equalization payment was charged as security for ongoing support and reduced by the arrears and related amounts owed.

The accused, W.R., was charged with sexual assault and sexual touching for a sexual purpose of a person under sixteen years of age (E.D.), his granddaughter's friend, during a sleepover.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and consistent, despite minor inconsistencies on peripheral details, and rejected the inconsistent and evasive testimonies of the accused and his granddaughter.

The court applied the principles of reasonable doubt and credibility assessment, concluding that the Crown proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Anna Thiessen, charged with possession of cocaine and methamphetamine for trafficking, brought an application for a directed verdict at the close of the Crown's case.

The court considered whether there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to infer that she had constructive or attributed possession of the drugs found in a crawl space at her jointly owned property.

Applying the test for a directed verdict, the court found no reasonable inference could be drawn that she had knowledge, consented to, or controlled the drugs.

The application was granted, and Anna Thiessen was acquitted of both counts.

The applicant sought a constructive trust interest in the respondent's home after a 15-year cohabitation.

The court applied the unjust enrichment framework from Kerr v. Baranow, finding no joint family venture and no tangible benefit conferred by the applicant that unjustly enriched the respondent.

The applicant's claim for a constructive trust was dismissed.

A counterclaim for pet damage by the respondent was also dismissed due to lack of mitigation evidence.

The applicant children's aid society sought an order for Crown wardship with no access regarding a 19-month-old child.

The child was apprehended at birth due to the mother's substance abuse and the parents' history of child protection involvement.

The father argued that the child's Métis heritage was not properly considered by the society.

The court found that the society made reasonable efforts to involve the Métis community, which declined to participate and supported adoption.

The court determined the child was in need of protection due to the mother's chronic drug addiction and the parents' inability to maintain a safe home.

The court ordered Crown wardship with no access, directing the society to ensure future placements educate the child on his Aboriginal heritage.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion brought by Robert Evans for disclosure regarding bank accounts of the deceased.

The applicant had made an offer to settle that was not accepted by the respondents.

The court found the applicant was completely successful on the motion and was entitled to partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer, pursuant to Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The respondents were ordered to pay costs totaling $11,737.97.

The defendants moved for security for costs against the plaintiff, Hockeyfest Incorporated, under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court applied a two-stage test: first, whether the plaintiff was a corporation with insufficient assets (which was conceded), and second, whether justice demanded the case proceed without security, considering impecuniosity and the merits.

The court found Hockeyfest failed to provide adequate financial disclosure to prove impecuniosity and that its claims against all defendants had very little chance of success due to its own non-compliance with contractual terms and misrepresentations.

Consequently, the court ordered Hockeyfest to post significant security for costs to each defendant, prohibiting further steps until paid, and allowing for dismissal if not posted within 30 days.

The plaintiff, a beneficiary of his grandmother's estate, brought a motion for directions and a Norwich Order against the estate trustees.

The plaintiff sought disclosure of the identity of a third party who received the bulk of the deceased's assets through a joint bank account with right of survivorship, which was funded by the sale of the deceased's home while the trustees acted under a Power of Attorney.

Applying the test for a Norwich Order, the court found the plaintiff had a bona fide claim and that disclosure was necessary in the interests of justice to determine if funds were improperly diverted.

The court ordered the trustees to disclose the identity of the joint account holder and produce all related banking documents.