SCJ 2019

In an action concerning a procurement process for Visa Application Centre services, the parties sought to settle the terms of a confidentiality order governing the disclosure of Third Party Information.

The sole issue was the wording of a paragraph dictating the scope of submissions that affected Third Parties could make on a future motion to determine confidentiality.

The plaintiffs argued for a narrower scope, while the defendant and Third Parties argued for a broader scope.

The court adopted the plaintiffs' proposed wording, finding it addressed issues clearly relevant to the Third Parties without tying the hands of the judge hearing the future motion, but noted this did not necessarily preclude Third Parties from raising other issues.

The parties resolved all corollary issues for divorce except primary residence and decision-making responsibilities for their eight-year-old daughter.

The applicant mother sought to move the child's primary residence to Ancaster to live with her new partner, while the respondent father sought to keep the child's primary residence in St. Catharines where she had grown up.

The court ordered joint decision-making, finding the parents had a history of co-parenting despite their conflict.

The court ordered the child's primary residence to remain in St. Catharines with the father, finding that the move to Ancaster would cause significant disruption to the child's life and that the mother's negative behaviour towards the father raised concerns about her ability to facilitate maximum contact.

On a summary judgment motion by police defendants in a civil action for negligent investigation, bad faith, and Charter damages arising from withdrawn sexual assault charges, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Applying the summary judgment framework and the reasonable and probable grounds standard, the court found the investigating officer had a sufficient objective and subjective basis to arrest and charge based on the complainant’s allegations and corroborative investigative steps.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on the complainant’s alleged Reactive Attachment Disorder as a basis to negate grounds, emphasizing that such a diagnosis did not eliminate the need to investigate or require corroboration.

The absence of expert evidence from the plaintiffs on the police standard of care was fatal.

Claims against the police defendants, including the request to erase the arrest record, were dismissed.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion for summary judgment seeking vacant possession of the defendant's unit to enforce a condominium lien.

The lien arose after the defendant's tenant unsuccessfully sued the corporation, resulting in costs awards and legal fees being added to the unit's common expenses pursuant to the Condominium Act and the corporation's by-laws.

The defendant, an elderly self-represented woman, argued she was not properly served and should not be responsible for her tenant's unauthorized actions.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the corporation properly served the defendant at her address for service and strictly complied with the Condominium Act.

The court held that the legislation mandates adding such costs to the common expenses to protect other unit owners, and granted the corporation possession of the unit to sell it and recover the outstanding arrears.

The applicant's motion to amend its notice of application was previously dismissed.

The respondents sought costs of $12,979.13 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant argued for no costs or deferred costs, citing divided success, novel questions of law, and its impecuniosity due to expropriation.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments, finding the respondents were entirely successful and the applicant's conduct in bringing a duplicative and unnecessary motion warranted rebuke.

The court awarded the respondents costs fixed at $12,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The respondent mother brought a motion to strike the applicant father's pleadings for failure to disclose, and sought orders restricting his access and communication.

The applicant father brought a cross-motion seeking unsupervised and expanded access to their 15-month-old child.

The court dismissed the motion to strike as disclosure was largely provided.

The court ordered ongoing drug testing for the father, moved access exchanges to a neutral location with strict non-contact rules, and restricted communication between the parties to a journal.

The court granted the father expanded access on a graduated schedule, but ordered that his overnight access remain supervised by paternal family members due to concerns regarding past drug use.

The parties separated in 2011 after a long-term marriage.

The applicant wife sought retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, equalization of net family property, and the continuation of a restraining order.

The court awarded retroactive child support for the period before the eldest child ceased being a child of the marriage.

The court also awarded compensatory spousal support, finding the wife was entitled to share in the husband's post-separation income increase due to the long-term nature of the marriage and her role in raising their special needs children.

The court calculated equalization and post-separation adjustments, resulting in a net payment owed by the wife from her share of the matrimonial home proceeds.

The restraining order was vacated as the circumstances no longer justified it.

The representative plaintiffs in a class action brought a motion for approval of their retainer agreements, class counsel's fees and disbursements of $175,000, and a $500 honorarium for each representative plaintiff.

The court found the honorarium modest and appropriate.

The court also approved the contingency retainer agreements under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and found the requested fees to be fair and reasonable given the results achieved, the risks undertaken, and the fact that the defendants agreed to pay the fees.

The applicant, an elector, brought an application under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act alleging that the respondent municipal councillor had an indirect pecuniary interest when he voted to support a proposed nuclear waste facility.

The respondent was employed by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), the proponent of the facility.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that CNL had a pecuniary interest in the project, as there was insufficient evidence regarding CNL's financial arrangements and remuneration.

On a temporary family law motion, the moving party sought unsupervised and overnight access to two children and leave to amend his application to include two stepchildren.

Despite the responding party’s concerns arising from the moving party’s prior armed bank robbery, incarceration, reliability, temper, and living arrangements, the court held that increased regular access was in the children’s best interests.

The court emphasized the importance of a child’s right to maintain attachment to a non-custodial parent, found no evidentiary basis for concerns about the grandmother’s mental health or the sleeping arrangements, and avoided school-night overnights to reduce logistical difficulty.

Temporary phased-in unsupervised and overnight access was ordered, and leave to amend was granted under Rule 11(3).

The applicant vendor brought a motion for leave to obtain a writ of possession for an industrial property after the respondent purchaser breached a settlement agreement by failing to pay municipal taxes on time.

The respondent cured the breach by paying the tax arrears before the hearing and sought relief from forfeiture.

The court applied the three-part test for relief from forfeiture, noting the applicant's own failure to fulfill environmental remediation obligations under the agreement.

Finding that forfeiture of a multi-million dollar property for a cured tax default would be disproportionate, the court granted relief from forfeiture and dismissed the motion.

The applicant mother brought a motion for ongoing child support, child support arrears, and section 7 expenses for the parties' five children.

The court ordered ongoing child support based on the respondent father's income and calculated arrears using DivorceMate software.

Regarding section 7 expenses, the court significantly reduced the applicant's claim because she failed to seek the respondent's consent before incurring most of the expenses, limiting his contribution to specific medical and tutoring costs.

The total arrears were ordered to be paid in monthly installments over five years.

The plaintiff was employed by the corporate defendant and was in a common-law relationship with its sole director.

Following their separation, the director terminated the plaintiff's employment, withheld her wages, and transferred the corporation's assets to a related company to render it judgment-proof.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment.

The court pierced the corporate veil under the Business Corporations Act, holding the director personally liable for the oppressive conduct.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for unpaid wages, 12 months' pay in lieu of notice, and aggravated damages for the bad faith manner of dismissal.

The representative plaintiffs sought approval of a settlement in a class action against General Motors regarding incorrect fuel economy stickers on certain 2016 model year vehicles.

The settlement provided class members with either a cash payment equivalent to a prior voluntary compensation program or a $2,000 voucher for a new vehicle.

The court found the settlement, negotiated at arm's length by experienced counsel, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and approved it along with class counsel fees of $175,000.

The father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' two children to Florida.

The mother had relocated the children to Ontario without the father's consent, breaching their shared parenting agreement.

The mother opposed the return, arguing under Article 13 that returning the children posed a grave risk of harm and that the children objected to returning.

The court found no evidence of grave risk and determined that the children's objections were significantly influenced by the mother and not substantial.

The court ordered the children to be returned to Florida.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend her statement of claim to add a janitorial company as a defendant in a slip and fall action, after the presumptive two-year limitation period had expired.

The proposed defendant opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to investigate the claim within the limitation period.

The court found the plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, as her paralegal believed in-house staff handled internal spills.

The court granted leave to add the defendant, noting the limitation defence could be pleaded and determined at trial or summary judgment.

Following a family law trial regarding a motion to change support, the successful applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The respondent, who was self-represented and had health issues, caused significant delays and unnecessary prolongation of the trial.

The court found that substantial indemnity costs were justified due to the respondent's conduct, but tempered the award to a mid-way point between partial and substantial indemnity due to her health and financial circumstances.

The applicant was awarded $35,000 in costs.

The plaintiff, a pensioner, brought a proposed class action alleging that the employer miscalculated the 2017 cost of living increase for pension payments, negatively affecting all subsequent years.

The plaintiff sought certification of the class proceeding and summary judgment for breach of contract, breach of trust, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding, finding it met all criteria under the Class Proceedings Act.

However, on the merits, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the defendants, concluding that the employer's interpretation of the pension plan's rounding provisions was correct and no breach of duty occurred.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss a libel action commenced by the plaintiffs, a law firm and its senior partner.

The action arose after the individual defendant protested outside the plaintiffs' offices with placards alleging the law firm was withholding funds owed to the corporate defendant for occupational therapy services.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the expression did not relate to a matter of public interest, but rather a private financial dispute between two professional firms.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiffs, finding compelling facts to depart from the statutory presumption of no costs for an unsuccessful moving party.

Following a trial arising from the breakdown of a long-term common law relationship with two children, the court rejected the applicant's claims for spousal support, unjust enrichment, and a joint family venture.

The court made strong adverse credibility findings against the applicant, accepted the respondent's evidence, and relied on expert income valuation evidence to impute the applicant's income at $75,000 annually under the Child Support Guidelines.

Retroactive and ongoing child support, retroactive and ongoing section 7 contributions, life insurance security, and discharge of a certificate of pending litigation were ordered.

A three-year restraining order was also granted based on findings of prolonged emotional and physical abuse.