SCJ 2019

This endorsement addresses costs following a judgment in favour of the respondent, Mr. Delmoro, where the applicant, Ms. Thomson, was ordered to pay child support and her claims were dismissed.

Mr. Delmoro sought fixed costs of $17,151.72, while Ms. Thomson proposed $6,936.33.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, noting the presumption of costs for the successful party.

Ms. Thomson's conduct was deemed unreasonable due to non-compliance with interim orders, failure to withdraw a meritless claim, and lack of settlement offers.

The court found Mr. Delmoro's requested costs reasonable and fixed them at $17,151.72, with $15,000 specifically allocated to child support enforcement through the Family Responsibility Office.

The Applicant, Sara Zehra Salim, sought costs following a lengthy family law trial where she was largely successful on issues of custody, access, spousal support, and Mehr payment.

The court found the Respondent, Syed Adeel Safdar, acted in bad faith regarding domestic violence allegations, which significantly prolonged the litigation and increased the Applicant's legal expenses.

The court awarded Sara $300,000 in costs, with $25,000 to be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) as support-related expenses, considering the Respondent's financial difficulties and the need to preserve his ability to exercise supervised access.

The defence moved for disclosure of legal advice provided to the Guelph Police Service, arguing that the police implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege by referencing legal advice in an Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant, thereby putting their good faith in issue.

The Crown and Guelph Police Service denied waiver.

The court distinguished the facts from R. v. Campbell, finding no illegal police activity and that the references to legal advice were part of a narrative for full disclosure, not an attempt to justify illegal activity.

The court held that the police did not implicitly waive privilege, and the defence's request for disclosure was dismissed.

The applicant sought to recognize and enforce a default judgment of $1,500,000 obtained in Israel against the respondent.

The respondent opposed, arguing the action should be heard in Ontario, the Israeli judgment offended natural justice, or the application should be stayed pending his efforts to set aside the judgment in Israel.

The court found a real and substantial connection to Israel, rejected the natural justice defence as the respondent had opportunity to defend and Israeli courts provide mechanisms to set aside default judgments, and denied a stay due to the respondent's lack of diligence.

The court granted the recognition and enforcement, with a term that enforcement would be stayed if the Israeli judgment is set aside.

This decision provides further directions in an ongoing estates matter concerning the estate of Terrence Blanks.

The court addressed the disposition of funds held in trust by an interested party, Mr. MacKenzie, and the resolution of his account.

Key issues included the procedural status of the defendant's counsel, Mr. Mercer, who had filed a factum but was not formally on record, and the appropriate mechanism for proving Mr. MacKenzie's account.

The court expressed concerns about initiating a separate proceeding for the account, preferring to retain jurisdiction within the existing case management.

A proposal from the plaintiff to assign any chose in action against Mr. MacKenzie to the defendant was put forward for future argument.

The appellant, Anderson Tung, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which found him incapable of consenting to treatment with anti-psychotic medications due to his inability to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of his decision.

The Board's finding was based on evidence of his delusions and denial of mental illness.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's decision under a reasonableness standard, finding sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the appellant lacked capacity to appreciate the consequences of his treatment decision.

The plaintiff, Rishi Drepaul, was terminated without cause from his employment as a Processing Improvements Coordinator.

He was provided 9 weeks' notice, which he argued was insufficient.

On a motion for summary judgment, the court determined the appropriate notice period, the total remuneration including benefits, and the deductibility of Employment Insurance (EI) benefits.

The court found Drepaul was wrongfully dismissed and entitled to 11 months' salary in lieu of notice, with benefits estimated at 10% of his salary, and confirmed that EI benefits are not deductible from wrongful dismissal damages.

The applicants, Ronald and Maureen Kentner, moved for summary judgment to enforce a vendor take-back mortgage against the respondent, Marina Stefanovic, who had defaulted on payments.

Stefanovic opposed the motion, alleging that the Kentners' real estate agent had engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the property's purchase price and that the Kentners were complicit.

Stefanovic also argued that partial summary judgment was inappropriate given her counterclaim against the Kentners and others.

The court granted partial summary judgment, finding the mortgage valid and enforceable, and that the Kentners did not participate in the alleged scheme.

The court determined that the mortgage claim was a discrete issue, suitable for bifurcation from the counterclaim, which would continue.

Christina Atkinson sought to enforce a settlement agreement with her former lawyers, Whaley Estate Litigation, regarding a fee dispute, pursuant to Rule 49.09 or common law.

Whaley Estate Litigation brought a cross-motion to dismiss the proceedings or transfer the matter to Small Claims Court.

The court found that both parties had elected to proceed with the fee dispute litigation before an assessment officer after settlement efforts failed, thereby repudiating the settlement agreement.

Consequently, neither party could enforce the settlement.

Both Ms. Atkinson's application and Whaley Estate Litigation's cross-motion were dismissed without costs.

This case involved a motion to change a 2012 consent order concerning custody, access, child support, and international travel for a child with Cerebral Palsy.

The court found a material change in circumstances, noting the child's evolving needs, the primary caregiver's financial strain, and the parents' inability to co-parent effectively due to ongoing conflict.

The court granted sole custody to the primary caregiver, ordered supervised access for the other parent in Toronto, and permitted international travel to a non-Hague Convention country without a bond.

Retroactive and ongoing child support was ordered, and the other parent's counter-claims were dismissed.

Substantial costs were awarded against the non-compliant parent.

The applicant sought primary residence and shared decision-making with final authority, and child support.

The respondent sought shared decision-making, equal residential parenting time, and temporary spousal support.

The court granted the applicant primary residence and shared decision-making with final authority, citing the respondent's surveillance activities and threats as reasons for a serious lack of trust and finding his conduct not in the children's best interests.

The respondent's request for equal residential parenting and temporary spousal support was dismissed, with the court finding no serious triable issue to set aside the marriage contract's spousal support waiver under the Miglin test.

Interim child support was ordered, and the issue of section 7 expenses and final child support was deferred.

This is a costs endorsement following a judgment released on February 19, 2019, which upheld a Master's ruling dismissing an appellant's motion to compel a non-party respondent to answer undertakings.

The non-party respondent, Eric Grossman, was successful in defending the Master's order and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that costs follow the event and that the amount sought by the respondent was reasonable, especially considering the appellant's own costs outline.

The court exercised its discretion to slightly reduce the requested amount due to potential non-conformity of the offer to settle with Rule 49.

The appellant was ordered to pay costs to the non-party respondent.

This decision addresses competing motions in an oppression remedy action among shareholders of Innotech Safety Solutions Inc. The defendants moved to dissolve an interlocutory injunction and sought declarations regarding minority shareholders' voting rights.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion for contempt due to alleged non-compliance with disclosure orders and sought to continue the injunction.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding no willful disobedience and that any contempt had been purged.

The interlocutory injunction was dissolved, as the factual basis for its continuance was not established.

The court suggested that a winding-up application might be a more appropriate remedy given the corporate dysfunctionality.

B.Z. was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault and unlawful confinement.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the violent nature of the assault, non-consensual vaginal penetration, and the victim's emotional trauma, and mitigating factors, such as the offender's lack of prior criminal record and educational background.

The court rejected the defense's submission for a lower sentence and the request to stay the forcible confinement conviction based on the Kienapple principle, finding the acts distinct.

A sentence of 42 months concurrent for both convictions was imposed, along with mandatory ancillary orders, but restitution was denied due to insufficient evidence of the precise amount.

The defence brought a pre-trial motion for disclosure of communications between the investigating officer and the Crown attorney regarding an infotainment system warrant, following the Crown's filing of an affidavit by the officer.

The defence argued the materials were relevant to the officer's credibility and the validity of the warrant.

The Crown opposed, arguing the request was overly broad and a "fishing expedition." The court, following an in camera review of the requested documents, ordered the disclosure of specific emails and a volume of documents deemed relevant to the officer's credibility.

The plaintiff's production motion was dismissed without prejudice, conditional on exhausting remedies under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPP).

The plaintiff re-brought the motion without exhausting these appeal rights.

The court dismissed the motion again, without prejudice, and awarded partial indemnity costs of $1,000.00 to the defendant, finding the requested costs of $2,900.00 excessive given the motion's simplicity and prior arguments on similar issues.

The plaintiffs brought an action against the investigating coroner, supervising coroners, and Ontario following the death of a four-year-old child in a remote First Nation community.

The plaintiffs alleged misfeasance in public office, negligent supervision, breach of s. 15 of the Charter, and breach of the honour of the Crown regarding the coroner's investigation.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court struck all claims without leave to amend, finding that the coroners' actions fell within their statutory discretion, statutory immunity barred the negligence claims, no private law duty of care was owed, and the Charter and honour of the Crown claims had no reasonable prospect of success.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages related to a mortgage agreement where the defendant failed to advance funds.

The defendant brought a cross-motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim, seeking payment of fees to remove its charge on the property.

The court found that the defendant was entitled to rely on the mortgage agreement's terms, which included conditions precedent for advancing funds that were not met due to the plaintiff's increased indebtedness.

The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to support claims of breach of contract or tortious conduct.

The plaintiff's motion was dismissed, and the defendant's cross-motion was granted, entitling the defendant to $11,000 plus interest from the surplus funds of the property's sale.

The parties separated after a 24-year marriage during which the respondent built a highly successful software company and the applicant was a stay-at-home parent.

Post-separation, the respondent unilaterally redeemed the applicant's shares in the company and sold the business for $2.2 million without notice to the applicant.

The applicant sought an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The court found that an equal division would be unconscionable given the respondent's unilateral actions, lack of disclosure, and the windfall from the sale.

The court awarded the applicant an unequal division payment of $174,920.28.

The court also imputed investment income to the respondent and employment income to the applicant for the purposes of calculating retroactive and ongoing spousal and child support.