Roger J.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim, which challenged Ontario's COVID-19 proof of vaccination requirements under the Charter and Human Rights Code.

The court found that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, as the requirements did not compel vaccination or engage sections 7, 8, or 15 of the Charter.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend, and the action was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant.

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary equal parenting time and joint decision-making responsibility.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the father's affidavit lacked sufficient evidence regarding the children's best interests under s. 16 of the Divorce Act and improperly sought final relief on a temporary basis without a strong evidentiary record.

The court ordered temporary child support on consent, specified the father's parenting time, and mandated that he take the children to their extracurricular activities.

Costs of $3,500 were awarded to the respondent mother.

The parties brought a motion regarding whether their children should attend school in-person or virtually, and to determine parenting time.

The court ordered that the children continue virtual schooling due to health concerns, pending a reassessment by the child's doctor.

The court maintained the temporary parenting schedule, clarifying that the paternal grandmother and other family members could care for the children during the father's parenting time.

The court also set the Christmas holiday schedule and ordered no costs due to divided success.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application to invalidate a patent agreement and the granting of the respondent's counter-application, the successful respondent sought costs.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding the actual fees claimed to be excessive for a simple application.

The court declined to order costs jointly and severally, instead ordering the applicant and the co-respondent (who aligned with the applicant) to pay discrete amounts reflecting their respective contributions to the costs incurred.

The applicants, engineering consultants, sought a declaration that they were entitled to a defence and indemnity from the respondent insurer under a construction insurance policy for underlying actions alleging negligence and nuisance arising from a shoring system design.

The insurer denied coverage based on a professional services exclusion.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the nuisance claims were based on acts arising out of the rendering of professional services, and therefore the exclusion clause clearly and unambiguously applied to preclude the duty to defend.