Sandra Jackson

The applicant, John Walker, sought an order under the Partition Act for the sale of a jointly owned property.

The respondents, Bethany Walker and Matthew Colling, opposed the sale, arguing it would cause them hardship amounting to oppression and requested a stay until an estate trustee was appointed and a Henson trust established.

The court found the respondents failed to demonstrate oppression, noting their inconsistent financial disclosures, the property's deteriorating condition, and the applicant's need for the sale proceeds for his care.

The court granted the order for sale, requiring the respondents to vacate and setting terms for the sale process.

The defendants moved for leave to amend their statement of defence and add a counterclaim for patent infringement against the plaintiff and several proposed defendants by counterclaim.

The plaintiff and proposed defendants opposed the amendments, arguing they were statute-barred and legally untenable.

The court granted leave to amend the defence and add the counterclaim against most of the proposed defendants, finding the amendments were not clearly statute-barred and met the low evidentiary threshold.

However, the court dismissed the motion to add one proposed defendant, Crystal, as the proposed pleading failed to allege any infringing activity within Canada.

The defendant was charged with two offences under the Regional Municipality of Waterloo By-Law 16-023 (as amended by By-Law 18-023): offering tow truck services within 200 metres of an accident scene and positioning a tow truck within 200 metres of an accident scene.

The defendant challenged the validity of the amended by-law as inconsistent with the Highway Traffic Act.

The court found that the amended by-law conflicted with section 177(3) of the Highway Traffic Act, which provides an exception for towing services in emergencies.

The court determined that an accident constitutes an emergency and that the by-law's complete prohibition on tow truck presence within 200 metres of an accident scene eliminated the provincial emergency exception.

The court found the amended by-law invalid and dismissed both charges.

This trial decision addresses the equalization of net family property, spousal support, and s. 7 child support expenses following a 20-year marriage.

Key disputes included the attribution of diamond rings and a joint bank account, the existence of a debt to the applicant's sister for a California property, the respondent's personal debts, and the valuation of a Honda and RRSPs at the date of marriage.

The court imputed income for both parties for support purposes and denied the respondent's request for a right of first refusal on a jointly-owned property.

In supplementary reasons addressing costs following earlier reasons under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the applicant mortgage lender sought full indemnity costs based on contractual mortgage provisions.

The court confirmed that while contractual entitlement to full indemnity costs exists, the court retains supervisory authority to ensure the amounts claimed are fair and reasonable.

The applicant’s bill of costs was reduced for inefficiencies, including excessive research time and the use of senior counsel for work that could have been delegated or billed at a lower rate.

Additional reductions were made for excessive preparation time on reply materials.

The court ultimately fixed reasonable full indemnity costs and rejected arguments for further reductions based on partial success or for awarding costs to another resisting respondent.