SCJ 2021

The plaintiff moved to enforce a settlement agreement purportedly reached via email correspondence between counsel following a full-day mediation in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendant argued the emails only represented an 'agreement to agree' and that the settlement was conditional on Board approval of an additional stock option grant, which was denied.

The court found that the parties had agreed on all essential terms and that the defendant's Board had no reasonable basis to decline the stock option grant.

The motion was granted, and the settlement agreement was ordered to be enforced.

The applicant brought a motion regarding the child's school enrollment, which was decided in favour of the respondent.

The parties submitted written submissions on costs.

The court found that while the respondent was successful, both parties had engaged in unreasonable conduct.

The court fixed costs at $8,000 in favour of the respondent, but ordered that this amount be set off against $8,000 in costs that the respondent already owed to the applicant.

The court reviewed and approved the first interim report of the Independent Special Advisor (ISA) appointed to review Independent Assessment Process (IAP) claims by former students of St. Anne's Indian Residential School.

The ISA's mandate was to determine if undisclosed OPP investigation documents could have materially affected the compensation paid to claimants.

The court approved the methodology and progress detailed in the report and directed the submission of a further interim report by the end of the year.

The plaintiff sought costs of $7,500 on a partial indemnity scale following a motion by the defendants for leave to amend their defence and a cross-motion by the plaintiff to strike paragraphs.

The defendants argued that success was divided and parties should bear their own costs.

The court found the plaintiff was substantially successful, as every disputed paragraph was struck in whole or in part, necessitating substantial amendments by the defendants.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $6,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The applicant's former lawyer brought a motion in family court for a charging order against a property for unpaid legal fees of approximately $664,323.

The property had been transferred to the respondent husband pursuant to family law minutes of settlement.

The court held that while the motion should ideally have been brought in the related civil action commenced by the lawyer, the family court had jurisdiction and would decide the motion to save resources.

The court granted the charging order, finding the lawyer was instrumental in preserving equity in the property and that there was a triable issue regarding whether the transfer was a fraudulent conveyance, with quantification to be determined in the civil action.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' two children, both of whom have special needs, attend in-person schooling at their current schools in Etobicoke.

The respondent mother opposed, seeking to enroll the children in schools in Meaford where she had temporarily relocated, or alternatively, that they continue virtual learning.

The court found that the mother's proposed change of schools amounted to a relocation under the Divorce Act, which she had not properly initiated.

The court held that the mother failed to demonstrate that the proposed new schools would better meet the children's special needs than their current schools, and ordered that the children attend their Etobicoke schools in person.

The father brought a motion to change final orders regarding decision-making, parenting time, and child support.

He sought decision-making authority, primary residence, and a retroactive reduction in child support.

The mother opposed the changes.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to a complete breakdown in communication between the parents, but determined it was in the children's best interests for the mother to retain decision-making authority and primary residence.

The court ordered the parties to use OurFamilyWizard for all communication.

The court adjusted ongoing child support based on the father's current income but declined to order a retroactive reduction for previous years due to his delay in seeking relief.

The parties were also ordered to proportionately share extraordinary extracurricular expenses.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous driving causing death and two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm after his tractor trailer collided with multiple vehicles in a construction zone on Highway 401.

The accused had falsified his logbooks and was driving almost double the permitted hours.

The court weighed the mitigating factors of his guilty plea and youth against the severe aggravating factors, including the death of a young mother, injuries to others, and his callous disregard for safety regulations.

The accused was sentenced to 3 years in a federal penitentiary and a 3-year driving prohibition.

The plaintiff moved to amend its statement of claim to increase damages and add allegations regarding the defendant's misuse of a lifetime loyalty program certificate, as well as a claim for unjust enrichment.

The defendant opposed, arguing the amendments introduced a new cause of action after the limitation period expired and failed to properly plead unjust enrichment.

The court allowed most of the amendments, finding they fell within the factual matrix of the existing breach of contract claim.

However, the court refused the amendment adding a claim for unjust enrichment because the plaintiff failed to plead an absence of juristic reason, and struck a reference to a breach of a separate 2011 agreement.

The mother was the successful party in a motion to change regarding parenting and child support.

She sought costs of $32,455.36, relying on an offer to settle that met the requirements of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The father sought costs of $25,000, alleging bad faith by the mother, or alternatively that each party bear their own costs.

The court found the mother was entitled to costs but reduced the amount to account for the father's success on a previous motion for summer access.

The mother was awarded costs of $15,000.

The applicant mother brought a motion to set aside Minutes of Settlement she had signed, alleging mistake, lack of independent legal advice, and duress.

The court found that the mother understood the agreement, had explicitly waived independent legal advice, and was not subjected to duress or coercion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the mother simply changed her mind, and ordered a final judgment in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement.

The plaintiff commenced an action in Ontario for wrongful dismissal and unpaid wages against the corporate defendants and their director.

The defendants, based in British Columbia, brought a motion to stay the action, arguing that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter or, alternatively, that British Columbia was the more appropriate forum (forum non conveniens).

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it had jurisdiction because the employment contract was formed in Ontario, where the plaintiff worked exclusively.

The court further held that the defendants failed to demonstrate that British Columbia was a clearly more appropriate forum, noting that the plaintiff's choice of forum was fair and efficient.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support.

The respondent claimed he was laid off and had no income, despite a history of funding a lavish lifestyle through unreported cash from his family's tax-preparation business.

The court found the respondent intentionally under-employed, imputed his income at $209,355, and ordered interim child support of $2,789 per month and spousal support of $2,769 per month.

Claims for retroactive support were deferred to trial.

Following a trial on a motion to change spousal support where success was divided, the court determined costs.

The court found that the responding party, Ms. Craig, behaved unreasonably by seeking relief the court had no jurisdiction to grant, refusing to admit facts, and significantly lengthening the trial.

Despite her limited ability to pay, the court ordered her to pay $14,000 in costs to the moving party at a rate of $50 per month, which may be offset against any equalization owed to her.

The parties separated in 2014 after a five-year relationship and having three children, one of whom has special needs.

The applicant sought joint decision-making, an alternating-week parenting schedule, and to purchase the respondent's interest in the matrimonial home.

The respondent sought sole decision-making, primary residence, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court granted sole decision-making and primary residence to the respondent, finding the parties could not communicate effectively and the respondent had been the primary caregiver.

The court imputed the applicant's income at $175,000 due to his lifestyle and retained corporate earnings, ordered the matrimonial home to be sold, and calculated the equalization payment owed by the applicant at $134,868.13.

The plaintiffs, Andrew and Selena Stronach, brought motions to strike out portions of the defendants' Fresh as Amended Statements of Defence under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs argued that the impugned pleadings improperly referenced documents and communications that were subject to settlement privilege arising from a confidential judicial mediation.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had waived privilege or that an exception applied based on the justice of the case.

The court found that the mediation was subject to settlement privilege, the plaintiffs had not waived the privilege, and no exception applied.

The court granted the motions to strike the pleadings relating to the mediation.

The court also struck out portions of one defendant's pleading as scandalous, but dismissed a motion to require another defendant to reinstate a withdrawn admission.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order for his 15-year-old daughter to attend reunification therapy and for equal parenting time, alleging parental alienation by the respondent mother.

The court dismissed the motion for reunification therapy, finding no expert evidence to support the allegations of alienation and noting the lack of a detailed therapy proposal.

Relying on a Voice of the Child report indicating the daughter's reluctance to spend time with the father due to his historical lack of involvement, the court ordered limited parenting time subject entirely to the daughter's wishes.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board upholding a finding that he was incapable of consenting to a Community Treatment Plan and confirming a Community Treatment Order.

The appellant argued that his capacity to consent to the plan should be assessed based only on his understanding of its administrative consequences, separate from his incapacity to consent to antipsychotic medication.

He also argued that the likelihood of substantial mental deterioration required for an order must occur within its six-month lifespan.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the therapeutic aspects of a plan cannot be ignored in the capacity test, and that the legislation does not require a precise temporality of within six months for the likelihood of mental deterioration.

The third party, a court-appointed receiver, brought a motion to stay a third party claim commenced against it by the defendants.

The defendants sought contribution and indemnity, as well as unpaid professional fees.

The court granted the motion and stayed the third party claim, finding that the defendants failed to obtain leave of the court as required by the receivership order.

The court also found that the fee claim was barred by the limitation of liability provision in the receivership order and constituted an abuse of process because it was identical to a previous action that had been dismissed for delay.

The applicant and respondent, both persons under a disability, reached a settlement in a protracted estate litigation dispute regarding their late father's will and power of attorney accounting.

They brought motions for court approval of the settlement.

A non-party sibling opposed the settlement, alleging unaccounted funds and lack of capacity of another beneficiary.

The court approved the settlement, finding it was in the best interests of the disabled parties, and dismissed the non-party's motion.

The court also ordered the settlement funds to be paid directly to the respondent and to the applicant's attorney for property, rather than into court.