Russell M. Raikes

Following a lengthy marriage, the court determined divorce, retroactive and ongoing support, section 7 contributions, and equalization of substantial family property including U.S.-denominated pension and retirement assets.

The court imputed modest additional income to the applicant for two years only, fixed table child support for limited periods while the parties' adult children were home from university, and rejected several claimed post-secondary expenses as unreasonable or overreaching.

On equalization, the court valued disputed foreign pension assets, rejected various speculative discounts and penalties, and fixed a substantial equalization payment.

The court found compensatory and some non-compensatory entitlement to spousal support arising from the parties' marital roles, ordered retroactive support with a tax adjustment, applied set-off against child support obligations, and ordered ongoing indefinite monthly support reviewable on retirement.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for farm properties, or alternatively, damages for breach of contract.

The defendants argued the agreement was unconscionable, they were coerced by real estate agents, and the property was not unique.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the validity of the agreement, rejecting the defences of non est factum and unconscionability, and held that the defendants breached the contract.

However, the court declined to order specific performance, finding the property was not sufficiently unique and damages were an adequate remedy.

Partial summary judgment was granted on validity and breach, with the issue of damages deferred to trial.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action after a 26-day trial, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the defendant should be deprived of costs because two of its witnesses gave untruthful evidence.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiffs' conduct was not egregious.

The court also refused to completely deprive the defendant of costs, but applied a 10% reduction to the fee award to sanction the untruthful testimony.

The court significantly reduced the defendant's claimed expert witness disbursements, finding them grossly excessive, and fixed total fees at $483,300 plus disbursements and HST.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim custody and an order requiring the respondent mother to return the child's primary residence to Stratford from London.

Both parents had a history of substance abuse, but the mother had been the primary caregiver since separation and the child was flourishing in her care.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act and ordered that the child remain in the primary care of the mother in London, with a parallel parenting regime and generous weekend access for the father.

The plaintiffs, franchisees of the defendant, brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking declarations that the defendant franchisor breached the Arthur Wishart Act by failing to provide a disclosure document upon renewal of their franchise agreement, and breached its duty of fair dealing.

The franchisor argued it was exempt from providing a disclosure document under s. 5(7)(f) of the Act because there was no material change.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that whether the terms of the renewal agreement constituted a material change, especially in the context of the franchisor's shift toward a corporate service model, presented a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's solicitor negligence claim on the basis that it was statute-barred.

The plaintiff alleged his former lawyer settled his family law matter without his consent and failed to protect his interests.

The court found that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the material facts giving rise to his claim by February 2014 at the latest, when he filed a complaint with the Law Society.

As the action was commenced in March 2016, more than two years after discovery, the court granted the motion and dismissed the action.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitral award which concluded that physician assistants fell within the scope of the paramedical bargaining unit under the collective agreement.

The hospital argued the arbitrator exceeded his mandate and applied an overly broad definition of 'paramedical'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable, grounded in the ordinary meaning of the word, the parties' practice, and labour jurisprudence, and did not improperly sweep in other excluded employee groups.

The appellant mother appealed a final order dismissing her application to relocate her daughter to Ottawa and transferring primary care to the respondent father.

The mother argued the motions judge made errors of fact, law, and mixed fact and law, including misapprehending the requirement for consent to relocate and failing to adequately analyze the child's best interests.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors.

The motions judge correctly applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework, properly considered the mother's past conduct regarding communication, and reasonably concluded that transferring primary care to the father, who offered to relocate to Kingston to minimize disruption, was in the child's best interests.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Financial Services Tribunal denying his request to retroactively purchase membership in his employer's pension plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application primarily because the applicant failed to exhaust his statutory right of appeal under the Pension Benefits Act and no special circumstances justified bypassing that route.

The Court also found that the application would fail on the merits, as the Tribunal's findings of fact were supported by evidence and its discretionary decision was reasonable.

The appellant appealed an order requiring him to sell his interest in a jointly owned property to the respondent.

The parties had previously been ordered to list the property for sale, but the appellant repeatedly frustrated the sale process, including refusing to close after making the highest bid.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's order was not a forced sale under the Partition Act, but rather a necessary step to implement and enforce a previous unappealed order for sale.

Class counsel brought a motion for approval of their legal fees and disbursements following the settlement of a securities class proceeding for $29.5 million.

Counsel sought $5.9 million in fees based on a contingency agreement.

The court reviewed the factors for approving class counsel fees, noting the early settlement and the high hourly rates docketed.

The court reduced the requested fee, approving $2.775 million plus HST as fair and reasonable compensation for the risk assumed and results achieved, along with full recovery of disbursements.

The plaintiff moved for approval of a $29.5 million settlement in a securities class action against the defendants for alleged misrepresentations in continuous disclosure documents regarding mortgage origination practices.

The settlement also resolved a companion Ontario Securities Commission proceeding.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the significant litigation risks, the complex damages calculations, and the immediate business implications for the corporate defendant.

The court also approved the Distribution Protocol, Notice Plan, and Claim Form, with minor modifications to extend the deficiency rectification period.

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to admit evidence of the accused's post-offence internet searches.

The accused was charged with arson and mischief after his former girlfriend's parents' shed burned down.

Hours after receiving a text accusing him of the fire, the accused searched for information about arson, evidence required, and drone controllers (which were destroyed in the fire).

The accused argued the searches were consistent with an innocent person falsely accused and that he had an alibi.

The court held that the internet searches were relevant circumstantial evidence of identity and narrative.

The court found the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect, leaving the ultimate weight and inferences to be determined by the jury.

The evidence was ruled admissible.

The applicant municipality brought an application to set aside a land transfer from the respondent McRobert to the respondent Lievre, alleging it violated s. 50 of the Planning Act because no severance was obtained.

The municipality moved for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against McRobert's remaining lands.

McRobert argued a CPL was unavailable because the municipality claimed no direct interest in the land.

The court held that a CPL may issue because the underlying application puts the extent of the title to the lands in question.

Applying the factors for equitable discretion, the court granted leave to issue the CPL to preserve the status quo pending the application's resolution.

The plaintiff sued police for battery, illegal search, wrongful arrest and detention, Charter breaches, and malicious prosecution.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that all claims except malicious prosecution were statute-barred by the two-year limitation period, and the malicious prosecution claim failed because the criminal proceedings did not terminate in the plaintiff's favour due to his entry into a peace bond.

The court dismissed the claims for battery, illegal search, wrongful arrest, detention, and Charter breaches as time-barred, finding the plaintiff knew of the injury and the appropriateness of a civil action at the time of arrest.

The court also dismissed the malicious prosecution claim, holding that entering into a peace bond does not constitute a termination of proceedings in the plaintiff's favour, and there was no evidence of improper motive by the Crown or police in offering the peace bond.

The respondent moved to set aside a final order granting sole custody to the applicant mother, permitting relocation, and fixing child support, which was made in his absence after he was noted in default.

The court applied the three-part test for setting aside a default judgment, finding the respondent moved promptly but failed to provide a plausible explanation for his default or an arguable case on most merits.

The motion to set aside was largely dismissed, with a temporary suspension of child support obligations conditional on the respondent filing financial documentation.

The Acuity defendants moved for summary judgment in a fire loss claim, arguing no causal connection could be proven between the fire and their light fixtures.

The plaintiff alleged a design defect in the open luminaires led to a metal halide bulb rupture, igniting a tarp.

The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial on causation, noting conflicting expert evidence and deficiencies in the initial fire investigation due to premature site clearance.

The motion for summary judgment was not granted, but the court directed further oral evidence to be adduced on the causation issue to potentially streamline the lengthy and expensive litigation.

The applicant father opposed the respondent mother's request to relocate with their 18-month-old child from Sarnia, Ontario, to Alberta.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" test from *Gordon v. Goertz*, denied the mother's mobility application.

The decision emphasized the child's young age and the need for frequent, regular contact with both parents to foster a strong bond, outweighing the benefits to the mother of relocating to be closer to her family and career opportunities, especially given concerns about her mental health treatment plan in Alberta.

The Union defendants moved to stay or dismiss the plaintiffs' action, arguing the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) had exclusive jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs, creditors of a bankrupt company (SOCF), sought damages in tort for conspiracy to injure, unlawful interference with economic relations, and inducing breach of contract, stemming from the Union defendants' alleged improper use of the grievance procedure to coerce SOCF into signing a collective agreement.

The court applied the "essential character" test from Weber v. Ontario Hydro and found the dispute's core to be a labour relations matter, specifically an alleged unfair labour practice under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Consequently, the court determined it lacked jurisdiction and stayed the action indefinitely, directing the plaintiffs to pursue remedies before the OLRB.

The plaintiffs, a grain elevator business and a seed business, sued their bank for refusing to advance funds to pay margin calls on their grain hedges.

The bank's refusal forced the plaintiffs to liquidate their hedges at a significant loss.

The plaintiffs argued the bank was required to give reasonable notice before refusing to advance funds, based on contract, negligence, and fiduciary duty.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiffs were in default of their loan agreements and overdrawn on their credit limits.

The court held that the bank had no contractual obligation to extend further credit, nor was there an implied term, duty of care, or fiduciary duty requiring the bank to provide reasonable notice before refusing to fund the margin calls.