SCJ 2015

The parties, who are common law parents of two young children, separated in 2013.

The applicant father, an undischarged bankrupt, sought joint custody and asserted property claims, while the respondent mother sought child support.

The court dismissed the father's property claims due to his lack of standing as an undischarged bankrupt.

Finding the father to be intentionally under-employed and rejecting his claims of medical disability, the court imputed an annual income of $41,392 to him for child support purposes.

Sole custody was granted to the mother due to the high level of conflict between the parties.

The plaintiff sought damages arising from childhood sexual assaults committed by a priest who stood in a position of trust and authority.

Civil liability was established through the defendant's criminal conviction, leaving quantum as the sole issue.

The court awarded substantial non-pecuniary damages, pecuniary damages for lost college-level earning capacity and future treatment costs, punitive damages, and prejudgment interest.

The court accepted expert psychological and accounting evidence linking the abuse to long-term psychiatric injury, impaired educational attainment, reduced occupational achievement, and ongoing treatment needs.

The defendants requested that the plaintiff's $10 million wrongful dismissal claim be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The plaintiff alleged she was fired for complaining about being used to conduct fraudulent financial transactions.

The court declined to issue a notice under Rule 2.1, finding that the statement of claim, though drafted by a layperson, stated clear causes of action and did not present a risk of abuse that would preclude the normal motion process under Rules 20 or 21.

The defendants requested that the court direct the registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs claimed $10,000,000 for assault and battery, alleging police misconduct and a cover-up.

The court declined to issue the notice, finding that while the allegations might seem outrageous, there was no indication on the face of the statement of claim that allowing the normal motion process under Rules 20 or 21 to proceed would involve a risk of abuse.

The respondent club brought a motion seeking to strike the member’s application or, alternatively, convert the proceeding to an action on the basis that material facts were in dispute regarding events leading to disciplinary proceedings and expulsion from membership.

The applicant argued that the application concerned the procedural fairness of the club’s disciplinary process rather than the underlying factual dispute.

The court held that the central issue was whether the club complied with its constitution and principles of natural justice, a matter capable of determination through the application process.

Applying the proportionality principles endorsed in Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court found it premature to require a full trial.

The motion was dismissed and the application permitted to proceed.

The moving party sought a final order terminating child support and reducing spousal support based on his retirement and the terms of a separation agreement.

The responding party conceded child support should terminate but opposed the spousal support reduction.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to retirement and applied the rule against double recovery for previously equalized pension income.

The court ordered a temporary termination of child support and a stepped reduction in spousal support, imputing income to the responding party to encourage self-sufficiency.

Following a jury verdict in a medical negligence action, the plaintiffs moved for judgment in accordance with the verdict, while the defendant physicians sought dismissal of the action or a retrial on the basis that there was no evidence supporting causation.

The court reviewed the narrow circumstances under which a trial judge may refuse to enter judgment consistent with a jury’s verdict under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 52.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendants argued the plaintiffs failed to establish a key link in the causal chain regarding whether mechanical cardiac support could have been obtained within a limited treatment window.

The court found there was some evidence from expert testimony and surrounding facts permitting the jury to infer that appropriate mechanical assistance could have been obtained through inter‑hospital transfer.

Because the verdict was supported by some evidence and the jury’s answers could sustain judgment, the court entered judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action regarding defective condominium bathtub valves brought a motion to set aside settlements reached between the defendants and several putative class members prior to certification.

The defendants had offered $500 and a valve replacement to unit owners who contacted them, in exchange for a release.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no breach of the Class Proceedings Act or Rules of Professional Conduct, and concluded that court intervention was not necessary to protect the putative class members' interests at this stage.

The father, residing in Manitoba, brought an application to vary a 2008 child support order to terminate support for three adult children.

A provisional order was granted in Manitoba terminating support on various dates and cancelling arrears of penalties.

The mother, residing in Ontario, opposed the repayment of any resulting overpayments, arguing the children were still in school and the father's income had increased.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice confirmed the provisional order with variations, terminating support as of the dates in the provisional order but ordering that the mother was not required to repay any child support overpayments, as the father's income had increased and he would have been liable for section 7 expenses.

The mother's request for costs was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the deadline for setting the action down for trial.

The defendant opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to amend a previous order to reflect a consent agreement that the action would be dismissed with no reinstatement if not set down by October 30, 2014.

The court amended the previous order to reflect the consent agreement but exercised its discretion to extend the timetable, finding that the defendant had not established non-compensable prejudice and shared the blame for the delay by failing to produce its affidavit of documents.

The deadline was extended to October 30, 2016.

Costs decision following a motion for directions in a guardianship application under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The applicant sought inclusion of production terms requiring disclosure of medical records and a lawyer’s file relating to powers of attorney executed by the applicant’s mother.

The court had previously refused to include those production terms in the order for directions.

On the issue of costs, the court held that the motion proceeded unnecessarily due to the applicant’s insistence on the disputed production terms and that the respondents had been prepared to consent to the remaining terms.

Partial indemnity costs were therefore awarded to two respondents, with reductions applied to the amounts claimed as excessive.

In a high-conflict separation, the respondent father brought a motion for temporary sole custody of the parties' two children, while the applicant mother sought joint custody.

The court found that the parents were unable to communicate effectively and that important decisions, particularly regarding the children's need for counseling, required timely resolution.

The court granted temporary sole custody to the father to ensure these decisions could be made, while ordering a specified access schedule for the mother, including alternate weekends and weekday evenings.

A request for a non-harassment order was dismissed as unnecessary given the parties' consent to communicate only via email about child-focused issues.

The accused was convicted after trial of sexual assault arising from sexual touching of a two‑year‑old child while acting as a babysitter.

The court conditionally stayed a related sexual interference conviction under the Kienapple principle.

In determining sentence, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the extreme youth of the victim and the breach of trust inherent in a caregiver abusing a child in his care.

After considering limited prior criminal history but the absence of remorse, the court imposed a custodial sentence within the established range and ordered numerous ancillary orders including SOIRA registration and long‑term prohibitions relating to children.

At a case conference involving three related civil actions with overlapping pleadings and defendants, the court addressed procedural disorganization arising from the commencement of multiple actions rather than amendment of an existing claim.

The court noted significant factual overlap between the claims and anticipated that consolidation or a fresh amended statement of claim might ultimately be required.

As case management judge, the court imposed directions governing future motions, service of materials, and communication between the self-represented plaintiff and defence counsel.

The court also scheduled a further case conference and authorized service by email on specific defendants.

The estate of a deceased elderly woman alleged that the defendant, who was a non‑contributing joint bank account holder and caregiver, breached fiduciary duties by transferring funds from the joint account to herself as compensation.

The court found that although the defendant occupied a fiduciary role in managing the account and effectively acted as a trustee de son tort, the payments were authorized pursuant to a family agreement for caregiving services.

Evidence showed the deceased approved the arrangement while capable and that the attorney for property had knowledge of the payments.

The court held the compensation was reasonable in light of extensive caregiving and financial management services.

The estate’s claim for repayment and damages was dismissed.

Following a prior family law judgment, the court determined the issue of costs between the parties.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering the applicant’s Offer to Settle, the court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and full recovery thereafter.

The court reviewed the bill of costs and found some duplication in pre‑trial work, warranting a modest reduction in fees.

Most disbursements were accepted, though expert invoices were assessed using the same partial indemnity and full recovery approach.

The court fixed total costs, including disbursements and HST, at $75,000.

The representative plaintiff in a proposed national class action alleged that multiple manufacturers conspired to fix prices of polyurethane foam and carpet underlay products.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking court approval of several negotiated settlement agreements with numerous defendants totaling approximately $29.28 million for the benefit of the class, along with cooperation provisions to assist claims against remaining defendants.

An objector argued that the settlements should not be approved until a distribution protocol and damages analysis were finalized.

The court held that settlement approval can properly occur before approval of a distribution protocol and that the negotiated settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class given the complexity, litigation risk, and absence of meaningful objections.

The settlements were therefore approved.

The applicant brought a contempt motion alleging that the respondent breached a prior parenting order requiring both parents to consult regarding their child’s medical care.

The evidence established that the respondent unilaterally took the child to medical professionals without consulting the applicant despite clear terms requiring consultation and knowledge of the order.

The court held that civil contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a party deliberately and wilfully breached a clear court order.

The respondent’s conduct met this threshold.

The court found the respondent in contempt but imposed no fine or custodial sanction, instead directing compliance with the existing order.

The applicant sought a declaration that all of his concurrent sentences for multiple drug trafficking and proceeds offences were eligible for accelerated parole review (APR) despite the repeal of the APR regime on March 28, 2011.

Some offences occurred before the repeal date while others occurred afterward.

The court considered the interaction of s. 11(i) of the Charter with the repeal of APR and the authorities interpreting eligibility for offenders whose conduct straddled the repeal date.

The court held that although APR may theoretically apply to offences committed before the repeal, it could not be extended to later offences simply because they were sentenced together.

On the facts, the repeal did not increase the applicant’s incarceration period because the later offences independently required longer incarceration.

Following the dismissal of an application for leave to appeal from a decision of a professional regulator, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant had previously been declared a vexatious litigant and filed submissions that did not address the costs issue and failed to comply with the court’s directions.

Applying the principle that costs should be fair and reasonable in the circumstances, the court found the regulator’s request for $3,500 to be reasonable and significantly less than the actual costs incurred.

The court awarded the requested amount of costs to the regulator.