Robert MacGregor

The appellant condominium owner appealed a Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) decision finding he breached a settlement agreement regarding excessive noise.

On appeal, the appellant argued the CAT provided inadequate reasons for dismissing his defence that the condominium corporation harassed him, and erred in awarding costs against him.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the CAT correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the harassment claims under s. 117(1) of the Condominium Act, and that the discretionary costs award revealed no error in principle.

The applicant sought to strike the respondent's answer, prevent further court orders, obtain directions regarding discovery evidence use between related civil and family proceedings, and appoint an expert to value the respondent's corporate shares and income.

The respondent cross-moved to add family members as parties and compel their disclosure/questioning, and for general disclosure from the applicant.

The court dismissed the applicant's requests to strike pleadings and prevent further orders, and the respondent's requests to add parties and compel non-party disclosure.

The court granted, by consent, the use of civil discovery evidence in the family case, ordered an expert income report for the respondent, and ordered specific financial disclosure from the applicant.

The applicant, a common shareholder in a family-owned real estate holding corporation, brought an application seeking dissent rights regarding the sale of corporate assets, an oppression remedy, and the appointment of a liquidator.

The court found that the applicant's dissent rights under the Business Corporations Act had been validly waived by a Unanimous Shareholders Agreement that granted the mother sole discretion to sell assets.

The oppression claim was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish a reasonable expectation of participation or any unfair prejudice.

However, the court ordered the appointment of an independent liquidator to wind up the corporation, finding that the current directors lacked the necessary expertise to manage the complex tax and legal implications of the liquidation.

The defendants brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's lawyer and his law firm as counsel of record, arguing that the lawyer would be a necessary witness at trial regarding allegations of interference with economic relations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it highly doubtful that the lawyer would be a necessary witness on a material issue.

The court concluded the motion was premature and brought mainly for tactical reasons, driven by one defendant's strong antipathy toward the lawyer.

This case concerns a motion to change a final parenting order, primarily addressing the child's primary residence and child support, triggered by the mother's relocation.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the child starting school, necessitating a variation of the existing shared parenting arrangement.

The court determined that it was in the child's best interest to primarily reside with the mother in Trenton, rejecting the father's proposal for primary residence with him.

The decision also addressed child support, imputing income to the mother and adjusting support obligations, and clarified other parenting arrangements, emphasizing a child-centric analysis.

At a case conference, the plaintiff sought directions and a timetable for a summary judgment motion regarding an unpaid $138,134.33 instalment on a commercial roofing contract.

The defendants sought to amend their counterclaim to allege fraud on unrelated projects and requested further cross-examinations and productions.

The court held that the proposed counterclaim should not delay the summary judgment motion, emphasizing the need for proportionate and expeditious proceedings under Rule 1.04 and Hryniak.

The court directed that the summary judgment motion proceed without further cross-examinations or productions related to the counterclaim.