Robert N. Beaudoin

Unit owners brought a motion alleging contempt against a condominium corporation and its directors for failing to comply with a prior court endorsement enforcing minutes of settlement.

The earlier order required reinstatement of the condominium courtyard and podium landscaping to its pre‑repair configuration after the board’s alternative design failed to obtain the required two‑thirds owner approval under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The board instead implemented materially different design features, including altered planters, a different traffic circle, a new address sign, and reduced vegetation.

The court held that the prior endorsement constituted a clear and enforceable order and that the respondents deliberately and wilfully breached it.

Contempt was established beyond a reasonable doubt, and the court ordered restoration of the original configuration and imposed personal liability on the individual directors for the additional restoration costs.

Family members disputed entitlement to proceeds from a winning “CHEO Dream of a Lifetime Lottery” ticket and the ownership of jointly held real property.

The applicants alleged an agreement to equally share any lottery winnings or, alternatively, that the respondent made a valid gift of equal shares to his parents.

The respondent denied the existence of any enforceable agreement or completed gift and argued the applicants had no legal or equitable entitlement to the proceeds held in court.

The court found that material facts and credibility issues were in dispute and directed that the application proceed as an action with pleadings, discovery, and mediation.

Separately, the court granted partition and sale of jointly owned property under the Partition Act, finding no evidence that the applicant’s request for sale was vexatious, malicious, or oppressive.

The offender was found guilty of aggravated assault and two counts of failing to comply with an undertaking after an unprovoked attack outside a gas station left the victim with a brain hemorrhage.

The Crown sought 42 months imprisonment, while the defence sought 2 years plus probation.

The court weighed the offender's prior criminal record and the severity of the unprovoked attack against his youth and lack of recent charges.

The court sentenced the offender to 36 months imprisonment less 222 days of pre-sentence custody credit, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

In a family law proceeding concerning equalization of net family property, the moving party sought to add a family farm corporation as a party and requested an order disqualifying the respondent’s lawyer from acting for the corporation due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The court considered whether the lawyer could represent both the corporation and the majority shareholder in circumstances where the minority shareholder alleged misconduct and oppression.

Evidence showed the lawyer had arranged a loan to the corporation through a company whose directors were members of his family.

Applying principles governing solicitor loyalty and conflicts of interest, the court held that a lawyer cannot simultaneously represent a corporation and its majority shareholder where allegations of misconduct by that shareholder are at issue.

The court found both a real and apparent conflict and ordered the lawyer and his firm to cease acting for the corporation.

The defendants, Ontario, Quebec, and Canada, sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision that dismissed their motions for summary judgment and allowed the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim.

The underlying action involved a fatal collision following a high-speed chase by Akwesasne Police Service officers, with the plaintiffs alleging vicarious and direct liability against the government defendants.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge's decision conflicted with established appellate authorities on the tests for summary judgment, amending pleadings, and establishing a private law duty of care, and that there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for assault, arguing that the trial judge improperly limited cross-examination of the complainant regarding a reconciliation letter, thereby denying the right to make full answer and defence.

The appellant submitted that the proposed questioning was relevant to credibility and supported by the principles governing cross-examination and the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The respondent argued the questioning concerned a collateral issue and that the trial judge properly exercised discretion to limit it.

The court held the proposed line of questioning was collateral and that, even if limiting it was erroneous, the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and no miscarriage of justice occurred.

The conviction was upheld.

The moving party sought summary judgment against the responding party for breach of a leasing contract.

The court applied Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the “full appreciation of the evidence” test from Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch.

The court found that the responding party had confirmed receipt of the leased equipment and made twelve monthly payments before defaulting.

The evidence established that the responding party breached the contract and that any dispute with the equipment supplier did not affect his obligations to the leasing company.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the moving party for the amounts owing under the contract.

The applicant brought a motion to change child support in a hybrid custody arrangement where one child resided primarily with the mother and another child was shared between the parents.

The court reviewed approaches to calculating child support in hybrid custody situations under the Child Support Guidelines, including the economies of scale approach and the hybrid set‑off method discussed in prior case law.

After considering the parties’ respective incomes, household circumstances, and the absence of a detailed Contino budget analysis, the court adopted a middle-ground approach and set support above the basic set‑off amount but below the table amount for two children.

Retroactive adjustment was limited to June 2011.

The court also ruled that only certain extracurricular registration fees qualified as section 7 extraordinary expenses.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for impaired driving and failing to provide a breath sample.

The convictions arose from a motor vehicle collision where the appellant was found in the passenger seat of a vehicle, and there was conflicting evidence regarding whether he was the driver.

The appellant also argued his failure to provide a breath sample was not voluntary due to extreme intoxication.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge failed to reconcile conflicting evidence on critical issues and failed to provide sufficient reasons to allow for meaningful appellate review.

The offender was sentenced following convictions for sexual assault, forcible confinement, uttering death threats, impaired driving, and dangerous driving arising from an incident in which the complainant was confined in a vehicle, threatened with death, and sexually assaulted in a remote area while attempting to return home.

The complainant escaped from the moving vehicle and was rescued by passing motorists, after which the offender engaged in dangerous and impaired driving while fleeing.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the offender’s criminal record, commission of offences while on bail, the complainant’s vulnerability, and the risk posed to the public.

Finding that previous non‑custodial sanctions had failed, the court imposed custodial sentences with concurrent and consecutive components.

Ancillary orders including DNA collection, sex offender registration, weapons prohibition, and a driving prohibition were also imposed.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and breach of recognizance following an altercation at a gas station.

The victim suffered a severe brain hemorrhage after being punched and tackled.

The accused claimed self-defence, arguing the victim was the aggressor.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding he sucker-punched the victim and engaged in a two-on-one assault with his cousin.

The accused was found guilty of aggravated assault and breach of recognizance.

The father brought a motion seeking joint custody of the parties’ children on a week-on, week-off basis.

The mother opposed the motion and sought to maintain the existing arrangement under which the children primarily resided with her and had daily contact with the father.

The court reviewed the parties’ post‑separation parenting history and found that the father had played a substantial caregiving role for approximately 18 months before the mother unilaterally reduced his weekday time.

The court concluded that the father’s proposed parenting schedule would provide greater stability and reduce daily transitions for the children, particularly in light of behavioural and adjustment concerns affecting one child.

An interim joint custody order with an alternating week schedule was granted.

Following earlier family law motions concerning custody, supervised access, and relocation after separation, the successful party sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court considered the factors under rule 24.11 of the Family Law Rules, including the importance of the issues, the conduct of the parties, and the reasonableness of the legal fees claimed.

Although the moving party had primary success on the central custody and relocation issues, the responding party obtained unsupervised access, resulting in partial success.

The court found the costs claim excessive and limited the award to costs relating to the motions rather than the entire proceeding.

Partial indemnity costs of $5,000 were awarded.

Following the dismissal of the defendant municipality’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff argued that the municipality advanced unfounded allegations that the plaintiff corporation was a “sham” created to circumvent the Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act (Construction Labour Mobility), 1999.

The court held that although fraud was not ultimately pursued, the allegations effectively challenged the plaintiff’s honesty and business integrity, justifying substantial indemnity costs.

However, the court found the time spent preparing the motion response excessive and reduced the amount claimed.

Costs were awarded on a substantial indemnity basis in the reduced amount plus disbursements.

Each parent brought a motion seeking determination of the primary residence of their young child as she was about to begin school.

The parties had previously operated under a shared custody arrangement following their separation, but the mother's relocation created practical difficulties once the child commenced school.

Applying the best interests test under s. 24(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court evaluated each parent's proposed parenting plan, including schooling arrangements, caregiving availability, and the stability of the child’s daily routine.

The court found the mother’s proposal would provide the child with greater parental presence, fewer daily transitions, and better support during the school week.

A temporary order granted joint custody with primary weekday residence with the mother and extended weekend parenting time with the father.

Following a jury conviction for trafficking cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the court considered the appropriate sentence.

The offender played a secondary role in a buy‑bust operation involving approximately one ounce of cocaine and had limited criminal history, strong family support, and demonstrated rehabilitation since the offence.

The court rejected the argument that the Kienapple rule barred multiple convictions, finding trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking constituted distinct criminal wrongs.

After reviewing authorities on conditional sentences in drug trafficking cases and considering the principles of deterrence, denunciation, rehabilitation, and parity with a co‑accused, the court concluded that the offender did not pose a danger to the community.

A conditional sentence served in the community was imposed with strict conditions.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's breach of tender claim.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff, an Ontario corporation, was an ineligible bidder under the Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act because the effective bidder was its related Quebec corporation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had effectively relocated to Ontario by establishing a corporate office and expanding its operations in the province, thereby exempting it from the restrictions of the Act.

The court determined costs following a motion involving multiple forms of relief, including leave to amend the statement of claim, settlement of a master's order, contempt, a case management timetable, and refusals and undertakings.

The moving party was largely unsuccessful on several issues, including a contempt motion that the court found premature and without merit.

The court held that contempt is a serious allegation and failure on such a claim may justify substantial indemnity costs.

Although there was divided success on some discovery-related issues, the defendants were overall the successful parties.

Costs were fixed in favour of the defendants.

A beneficiary applied for costs following a successful application removing an executor and trustee of an estate.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs and requested that the respondent pay personally due to misconduct in administering the trust and breaching a mediated settlement agreement.

The court found the respondent’s conduct reprehensible, including withholding trust funds without justification, acting under conflicts of interest, and attempting unsuccessful procedural delays.

While the applicant could not recover costs from a previously settled proceeding, the respondent’s breach of the settlement agreement justified a higher scale of costs.

Full indemnity costs were awarded and ordered payable personally by the respondent, together with reimbursement to the trust for legal fees he had paid to his own counsel from trust funds.

Child protection proceedings under the Child and Family Services Act concerning two young children in the care of the Children’s Aid Society.

The applicant sought Crown wardship with a view to adoption following prolonged periods in care, repeated missed access visits, unstable housing, substance‑exposure concerns, and failure by the mother to cooperate with services or attend trial.

Evidence showed a history of neglectful living conditions, inability to maintain consistent contact with the children, and unsuccessful kinship placement assessments.

The court found the children to be in need of protection under s. 37(2) of the Act and determined that their physical, emotional, and developmental needs required permanency through adoption.

Crown wardship without access was ordered.