Roger Trudel

The applicant brought an application seeking a declaration of sole ownership of a property purchased jointly with the respondent, his former common-law partner, arguing a resulting trust.

The respondent opposed, claiming unjust enrichment and a joint family venture, and requested the matter be transferred to Family Court.

The Superior Court of Justice declined to make findings of fact and transferred the proceeding to Family Court, noting that under section 21.8(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, claims for unjust enrichment between persons who have cohabited fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court.

The appellant, an ODSP recipient, appealed three Social Benefits Tribunal decisions upholding the denial of funding for medical cannabis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

The Director had no discretion to fund medical cannabis because it lacks a Drug Identification Number (DIN) and is not listed on the Ontario Drug Benefit formulary.

The Tribunal correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies and that the appellant's Human Rights Code discrimination claim had no reasonable prospect of success, as the denial of funding applied equally to all ODSP recipients.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for the immediate return of the parties' nine-year-old daughter to Ottawa to resume in-person access.

The mother had previously relocated the child to Tiny Township without consent and, in breach of a prior court order, failed to return the child, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as justification.

The court found the mother in breach of the prior order and rejected her attempt to use the public health emergency as an excuse to unilaterally relocate.

The motion was granted, and the mother was ordered to return the child to Ottawa with police enforcement.

This trial concerned the best interests of a six-year-old child, Xavier, regarding custody and mobility.

The applicant father sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the child from Kingston, Ontario, to Edmonton, Alberta, due to a Canadian Armed Forces transfer.

The respondent mother sought sole custody and for the child to move to Montréal.

The court conducted a thorough credibility assessment, finding the father to be a direct and forthright witness, while finding the mother not credible due to inconsistencies, false financial statements, and attempts to mislead the court.

The court granted the father sole custody and permission to relocate, determining that his plan offered greater stability and was in the child's best interests.

The mother was granted specified access, with travel costs shared, and ordered to pay retroactive child support for 2016.