Superior Court of Justice

The parties separated after a 13-year marriage.

The respondent failed to provide financial disclosure, resulting in his pleadings being struck except for parenting issues.

In an uncontested trial, the court imputed the respondent's income at $294,420 based on expert evidence of his corporate earnings and personal expenses paid through the business.

The applicant was awarded substantial retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, occupation rent of $165,000, and an equalization payment of $241,514.24, which included an unequal division for property damage caused by the respondent.

The court also ordered the respondent to obtain a $1.5 million life insurance policy to secure his support obligations and issued a non-depletion order.

This addendum to a prior ruling on a motion addresses the remaining aspects of a request to strike a Third Party Counterclaim.

The Moving Parties (10313033 Canada Inc., Madeleine Bonhomme, and Sameh Mansour) sought to strike portions of Antranik Kechichian's counterclaim against Bonhomme and Mansour, alleging abuse of process due to duplication with other proceedings, irreconcilable positions, and the potential for inconsistent findings.

The court found that the claims against Bonhomme regarding the Aylmer franchise and against Mansour regarding the Innes Road franchise were indeed an abuse of process, as they could have been pleaded in existing actions involving corporations controlled by Bonhomme and Mansour, or presented irreconcilable positions.

Consequently, the remaining paragraphs of the counterclaim against the Moving Parties were struck.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking the return of the children to Ottawa and unsupervised access.

The respondent mother opposed, requesting the children remain with her in Niagara and that the father's access be supervised due to his mental health issues.

The court ordered the mother to return the children to the matrimonial home in Ottawa, granted her exclusive possession, and allowed the father unsupervised access three times a week.

The mother was permitted to travel with the children to Niagara one week per month, during which the father could exercise access in Niagara.

The court found no compelling reasons for relocation and no evidence warranting supervised access.

This decision concerns a reconsideration of an urgency determination in a family law matter during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent father sought leave to bring an urgent motion regarding parenting time and school issues for his two children.

Initially, the court found no urgency.

Upon clarification from respondent's counsel regarding a significant number of missed parenting days for one child (Ella), the court reconsidered its decision.

The court found the issue of Ella's parenting time to be urgent, allowing a motion on this specific issue to proceed, but maintained that the school and other child's parenting time issues were not urgent.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for parenting time after the parties separated and the respondent mother allegedly denied him access to their six-year-old child.

The court considered whether the matter met the definition of urgency under the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession regarding the COVID-19 pandemic court suspension.

The triage judge concluded the matter met the definition of urgency because it involved an allegation of wrongful retention of a child, and ordered the motion to proceed on the limited issue of access.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion where the Applicant was successful.

The Applicant sought costs on a full or partial indemnity basis, citing success and the Respondent's unreasonable conduct.

The Respondent argued against costs due to the Applicant's failure to serve an offer to settle, or alternatively, proposed a lower partial indemnity amount.

The court awarded the Applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding her success warranted it but not the Respondent's conduct for a higher scale.

Costs were ordered payable to Legal Aid Ontario.

The Applicant sought costs following the Respondent's successful motion to set aside an ex parte temporary order.

The court found the Applicant guilty of bad faith conduct due to material misrepresentations made to the court and unreasonable behaviour, including false allegations of abuse and non-disclosure.

Despite the Respondent's offer to settle not strictly complying with Rule 18(14), it was considered a bona fide attempt at compromise under Rule 18(16).

The Applicant's financial hardship was not considered a mitigating factor given the finding of bad faith and similar modest means of both parties.

The court awarded the Respondent full recovery costs of $8,300, payable forthwith.

At a pre-trial for a motor vehicle accident case, the parties sought direction on how to proceed given the defendant had delivered a jury notice prior to the January 1, 2020 amendments to Rule 76.

The Master held that the new Rule 76 and section 108 of the Courts of Justice Act prohibit jury trials in simplified procedure actions.

Consequently, actions with pre-2020 jury notices must be converted to the ordinary procedure to preserve the right to a jury trial.

Lorne Clifford Clement was charged with sexual assault.

The trial focused on the credibility of the complainant and the accused.

The court found the accused's testimony unreliable due to inconsistencies with his prior police statement and admitted intoxication.

The complainant's evidence was deemed credible and compelling.

The court rejected arguments based on stereotypical behaviour of sexual assault victims, citing appellate authority.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.

This endorsement addresses an urgency motion brought by the respondent father during the COVID-19 pandemic court suspension.

The father sought to set aside custody and restraining orders concerning the three oldest children (over 18) and to vary child support due to alleged reduced income and the children no longer being "children of the marriage." The court found the matter met the criteria for urgency as it involved a restraining order and potentially dire financial circumstances, both explicitly mentioned in the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession.

The motion was allowed to proceed, limited to the issues of the restraining order for the older children, ongoing child support, and arrears.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motions for summary judgment, the successful plaintiff sought costs of $11,000.

The Condominium defendants argued that costs should not be awarded due to pleading deficiencies or should be in the cause.

The court found that this case fell within the exceptional class of cases where costs in the cause is warranted, as the merits were yet to be adjudicated and the motion materials would be useful at trial.

Costs were ordered in the cause.

The plaintiff moved to enforce a settlement agreement reached during a pre-trial conference, where the defendants agreed to pay $200,000.

The defendants argued the motion was premature, citing difficulties in refinancing their home to secure the funds.

The court found that a reasonable time for payment had passed, regardless of whether the payment was conditional on refinancing, as the defendants controlled the timing of the event.

The motion to enforce the settlement was granted, and the plaintiff was awarded costs.

The applicant, Marilyn Celia Smith, sought appointment as estate trustee without a will for the deceased, Craig Daniel Timmerman, who died intestate with no assets.

The deceased's remains, along with his mother's, were lodged in a morgue, and the applicant wished to arrange cremation through Ontario Works.

The application also sought to dispense with the requirement to give notice to the deceased's sister, Shannon Timmerman, and to address the existence of an estranged minor son, "Daniel." The court granted the application, dispensing with notice, based on reasons provided in a companion application concerning the Estate of Marguerite Timmerman.

The applicant was encouraged to make best efforts to notify Shannon Timmerman of the appointment without unduly delaying the final disposition of the remains.

This decision addresses an urgent motion brought by the applicant mother, Joann Peters, seeking the return of her children, Preston and William, from the respondent father, George Peters, who had retained them after a March Break access period.

The motion also sought a transfer of the matter to Kingston.

The court, operating under COVID-19 emergency protocols, determined whether the motion met the criteria for urgency, specifically regarding the wrongful retention of a child.

The court found the matter urgent and allowed the motion to proceed, limited to the issue of wrongful retention, while making several procedural orders for the exchange of affidavits and scheduling.

The Father (Respondent in the original application, but moving party in this motion) sought to have the Mother (Applicant in the original application, but responding party in this motion) found in contempt of a final order dated March 28, 2019, alleging multiple breaches related to children's presence with the Mother's former spouse, healthcare decisions, exchange of documents, extra-curricular activities, and involving children in adult issues.

The Mother denied intentional breaches, arguing ambiguity in the order.

The court found some breaches proven beyond a reasonable doubt but exercised its discretion to decline a finding of contempt, issuing a stern admonishment instead, emphasizing the best interests of the children and the need for de-escalation of parental conflict.

This costs endorsement follows a bifurcated jury trial where liability was determined, finding 92% against the plaintiffs and 8% against the defendants.

The plaintiffs sought approximately $120,000 in partial indemnity costs plus $20,000 in disbursements, while the defendants proposed approximately $40,000 plus disbursements.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $55,000 in partial indemnity costs plus disbursements, noting that the plaintiffs' bill of costs conflated liability and damages issues.

The court commended counsel for their informed approach to bifurcating the trial and suggested that the Civil Rules Committee consider amending the Rules of Civil Procedure to allow judicial discretion in bifurcating liability and damages without party consent.

The plaintiff purchased a renovated property from one defendant, discovering numerous building deficiencies.

He sued the seller for negligent construction and breach of the Ontario Building Code, and the municipality for negligent inspections and breach of statutory duty under the Building Code Act.

The court found the seller liable for negligent construction and breach of contract, and the municipality jointly and severally liable for conceded deficiencies that should have been caught during inspections.

The plaintiff's claim for contributory negligence was dismissed.

Damages were awarded for repairs, out-of-pocket expenses, alternate living expenses, and general damages.

The municipality's crossclaim against the seller for contribution and indemnity was granted, while the seller's crossclaim against the municipality was dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion for restoration of access to his two children and an assessment under s. 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondent mother had withheld access since January 2020 and failed to file responding materials.

The court granted the applicant interim access to the children and ordered the respondent to pay $500 in costs, emphasizing that it is not in the children's best interests to be without their father.

The plaintiff retained new counsel shortly before trial and brought a motion for leave to amend the statement of claim, conduct further discovery, and file an expert report, despite the action having been set down for trial.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed amendments did not add new causes of action and that the defendants would not suffer irremediable prejudice.

The court also permitted further discovery, noting that the recent production of audited financial statements justified the plaintiff's change in strategy.

The applicant sought to be appointed as estate trustee without a will for her deceased sister's estate to arrange for the cremation of the deceased and her recently deceased son.

The deceased's surviving daughter, who had priority to be appointed, was uncooperative, transient, and appeared to lack capacity, causing a seven-month delay in disposing of the remains.

The court dispensed with the requirements under the Rules of Civil Procedure for the daughter's consent or renunciation and granted the application in the interests of justice.