Robert E. Charney

The plaintiff sued former employees and related entities for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and misuse of customer relationships in the computer memory resale business.

The court held that a restrictive covenant signed after employment began was unenforceable for lack of fresh consideration, but upheld a separate six-month non-solicitation clause binding on the other employee.

The court further found that the senior salesperson was a key employee owing a limited post-employment fiduciary duty not to solicit former customers, and that both brothers worked in concert to solicit customers before the consent order issued.

The court rejected the claim that post-order responses to customer requests for bids constituted solicitation.

Damages of $132,581.00 plus prejudgment interest were awarded.

A non-party corporation brought a motion to set aside default judgments obtained against an individual for unpaid legal fees.

The moving party argued the judgments were invalid because the legal services were allegedly provided to a corporation rather than the individual personally, and that the default judgments undermined its defence in related mortgage litigation.

The court held that the moving party lacked standing because the default judgments affected it only indirectly as a creditor and it had no relationship with the defendant.

In any event, the motion was brought after significant delay, provided no explanation for the defendant’s default, and the deemed admissions in the statement of claim were sufficient to support the judgments.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The applicant father sought an order reappointing a social worker to conduct an updated s. 30 Children’s Law Reform Act parenting assessment and requested that both parties share the estimated $10,000 cost.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing there had been no significant developments since the original assessment and that the cost would cause financial hardship.

The court held that an updated assessment should only be ordered where meaningful new developments justify the expense.

The father’s reliance on the successful implementation of access and speculative concerns about the mother did not constitute significant developments.

Considering the substantial prior cost of the assessment, the absence of new evidence, the respondent’s financial hardship, and lack of agreement on the assessor, the court declined to exercise its authority to order a new assessment.

The respondent father brought a motion to progressively expand his access schedule with his two-year-old child to include unsupervised and overnight access.

The applicant mother agreed in principle but requested a slower progression due to concerns about the father's past substance misuse and missed visits.

The court found that supervised access should not be permanent and ordered a structured, progressive schedule transitioning from supervised to unsupervised and eventually overnight access, with conditions prohibiting alcohol consumption and requiring secure storage of firearms.

In a family law support proceeding, the respondent father sought an adjournment of a motion brought by the applicant mother seeking increased child support and spousal support, including substantial retroactive claims based on a forensic accounting report alleging significantly higher income.

The court accepted that the father should be permitted time to obtain a responding expert report but found the delay primarily benefited him.

As a condition of granting the adjournment, the court ordered temporary, without prejudice support payments calculated using a conservative estimate of income derived from the forensic report and the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court imposed monthly interim payments pending determination of the motion to mitigate prejudice to the mother resulting from the delay.

A paternal grandmother brought a motion for contempt alleging that the child’s mother refused to comply with a court order granting the grandmother weekly access to the child.

The evidence included text messages and prior admissions confirming that access had been intentionally denied despite the clear terms of the order.

Applying the established three‑part test for civil contempt, the court found the order was clear, the breaches were deliberate, and the contempt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court emphasized that family law litigants cannot unilaterally disregard access orders even where they dispute the appropriateness of the arrangement.

As a sanction, the court barred the mother from pursuing her outstanding motion to change or any other motion until she purged her contempt and complied with the access order.

The mother brought a motion to determine the primary residence of the parties' two children and for the penalty phase of a contempt finding against the father.

The father had previously been found in contempt for failing to comply with an access order, though he subsequently purged his contempt.

The father also brought a motion for the judge to recuse himself, arguing that the previous contempt finding created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, holding that adverse credibility findings in interlocutory proceedings do not inherently create bias.

On the contempt penalty, the court ordered the father to pay $3,000 in full recovery costs due to his bad faith.

On the issue of primary residence, the court found it in the best interests of the children to reside with the mother in Barrie pending final resolution, given the father's history of thwarting access and the mother's ability to provide a stable environment.

The mother brought a motion to determine the primary residence of the parties' two children and for the penalty phase of a contempt finding against the father.

The father had previously been found in contempt for failing to release the children for access, and he brought a preliminary motion requesting the judge recuse himself due to reasonable apprehension of bias arising from adverse credibility findings in the contempt decision.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, holding that prior adverse credibility findings do not inherently create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

On the contempt penalty, the court ordered the father to pay $3,000 in costs on a full recovery basis due to his bad faith.

Regarding primary residence, the court found it in the children's best interests to reside with the mother pending final resolution, citing the father's history of thwarting access and concerns about his ability to promote a positive environment.

The respondent father brought motions to find the applicant mother in contempt of court for breaching a temporary order prohibiting her from moving the children out of Simcoe County, and to restrain her from moving to Niagara Falls pending a motion to change.

The court found the mother in contempt for wilfully disobeying the order, but imposed no penalty as she had purged her contempt by returning the children.

The court dismissed the motion to restrain the move, finding that the mother's relocation to Niagara Falls was in the best interests of the children, provided she facilitate the father's access.

The respondent father brought motions to find the applicant mother in contempt of court for breaching a temporary order prohibiting her from moving the children out of Simcoe County, and to restrain her from moving to Niagara Falls pending a motion to change.

The court found the mother in contempt for wilfully disobeying the order, but imposed no penalty as she had purged her contempt by returning the children.

The court dismissed the motion to restrain the move, finding that the mother's relocation to Niagara Falls was in the best interests of the children due to safety, housing, and family support factors.

The father brought an urgent motion seeking to prevent the mother from relocating with the parties’ young child outside Simcoe County and moving to Manitoba.

The parties had joint custody with the child’s primary residence with the mother, and the father exercised limited weekly access.

The court considered interim mobility principles and the child’s best interests, including the mother’s need to relocate due to the sale of her residence and her lack of local support.

While the court permitted the mother to relocate within Ontario to obtain family support and financial stability, it declined to allow an interim move to Manitoba because it would fundamentally alter the existing access regime and create a new status quo before trial.

The father’s request to restrict relocation within Ontario was dismissed, but the mother was prohibited from leaving Ontario pending further court order.

The father brought a motion seeking primary care of the parties’ child after the child had temporarily resided with him during the mother’s attempt to relocate for employment.

The mother brought a cross‑motion seeking the child’s return to her care pending determination of the father’s motion to change an earlier custody order.

The court found that the prior final order granting the mother sole custody represented the legal status quo and that the temporary residence arrangement with the father was intended to be temporary under the parties’ agreement.

Applying the best interests of the child under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court concluded the child should return to the mother’s care until the motion to change is determined on the merits.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking to hold the respondent mother in contempt for allegedly breaching multiple provisions of a prior consent order governing parenting time, counselling, communication, and payment obligations.

The court emphasized that contempt in family law proceedings is a remedy of last resort requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a clear order was wilfully disobeyed.

The court also held that an arbitrator lacks jurisdiction to determine or punish contempt of court and questioned the validity of a prior arbitration-based contempt penalty incorporated into a court order.

After reviewing each alleged breach, the court found the evidence insufficient to establish deliberate non-compliance.

The motion was dismissed and the respondent was entitled to seek costs.

On an urgent family motion, the court held that the matter could proceed before a case conference under rule 14(4.2) because the respondent alleged she had fled an abusive relationship and there was sufficient corroboration of ongoing safety concerns.

Applying the best interests analysis under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court granted the respondent temporary care and control of the parties' one-year-old child.

The court also permitted the respondent to relocate temporarily to Sioux Lookout, emphasizing her role as primary caregiver, the child's ongoing breastfeeding, objective medical evidence, and the need for family and therapeutic supports.

Facilitated access was ordered for the applicant on specified dates pending the case conference.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for interim sole custody of the parties' one-year-old son, alleging the respondent mother was abusing drugs and alcohol while breastfeeding.

The respondent mother brought a counter-motion for temporary care and control and permission to relocate to Sioux Lookout, alleging she fled the matrimonial home due to the applicant's escalating anger and domestic violence.

The court found the matter urgent under Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules.

Relying on corroborating medical and CAS evidence supporting the mother's version of events, the court granted the mother temporary care and control.

The court also permitted the mother to temporarily relocate to Sioux Lookout with the child to secure her safety and family support, while granting the father facilitated access.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking retroactive and ongoing child support under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines in a shared custody arrangement.

The respondent mother argued that the applicant was intentionally underemployed and that income should be imputed to him at a higher level.

Applying the test from AMD v. AJP, the court found the applicant was intentionally underemployed and imputed income of $75,000 to him.

However, given factual disputes regarding standards of living and the imminent trial process, the court declined to make interim or retroactive child support orders.

The issues were held to be more appropriately determined at trial.

The applicant brought an urgent motion under rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules seeking a temporary order permitting relocation with a child to Alberta due to the applicant’s spouse being temporarily transferred for employment.

The motion sought to proceed before a case conference on the basis of urgency tied to an upcoming school start date and planned relocation timeline.

The court held that the circumstances did not constitute urgency or hardship within the meaning of rule 14(4.2), emphasizing that parties cannot manufacture urgency through delay or logistical convenience.

The court found no evidence of harm to the child if the relocation decision were briefly delayed and concluded that the responding parent was entitled to a full opportunity to respond before a potential status quo change.

The request to proceed without a case conference was therefore dismissed and directions were given to schedule a case conference and motion promptly.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking expanded access to his child following several years of interrupted contact arising from allegations of sexual abuse that resulted in criminal charges but ultimately ended in acquittals.

Competing professional evidence addressed the child’s wishes, potential coaching, and the impact of parental conflict on the child’s wellbeing.

Psychological and therapeutic assessments concluded that the child had little or no independent recollection of abuse and that continued reunification with the father was beneficial and safe.

Applying the best interests analysis under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found the risk of harm to the child from renewed contact to be low and the benefits of rebuilding the parent-child relationship significant.

The court ordered a modified, slower graduated access regime with initial supervision and a future professional review.

The respondent mother brought a contempt motion alleging the applicant father repeatedly breached a consent access order by refusing to deliver the parties’ children for scheduled parenting exchanges.

The father admitted he knew the order but claimed he would not force the child to attend visits because the child expressed reluctance and alleged safety concerns about the mother’s partner.

Child protection authorities had investigated and found no basis for the father’s allegations.

The court found the father intentionally disobeyed a clear order and that any reluctance expressed by the child resulted from the father’s coaching or influence.

Applying the civil contempt test, the court held the breach was wilful and proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and adjourned the matter for a separate penalty hearing.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on a charge of driving over 80.

At trial, the accused raised a 'bolus drinking' defence, testifying she rapidly consumed a large beer shortly before driving.

The Crown requested an adjournment to call a toxicologist in reply to calculate the impact of this consumption on her blood alcohol concentration.

The trial judge denied the adjournment, treating the request as an attempt to reopen the Crown's case.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in law by confusing reply evidence with reopening a case.

The Crown was entitled to call reply evidence to respond to a new matter put in play by the defence.

A new trial was ordered.