Superior Court of Justice

The Respondent (mother) brought an urgent motion for the return of children to her primary care, alleging the Applicant (father) unilaterally withheld them due to her profession as a healthcare worker during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Applicant (father) filed a cross-motion seeking primary care or, alternatively, a week-on/week-off schedule, citing the mother's increased risk of exposure to COVID-19.

The court found the father's actions unreasonable and that he was using the pandemic to his advantage.

The court ordered a temporary week-on/week-off schedule for the children while schools are closed and the Stay at Home Order is in effect, reverting to the separation agreement's terms thereafter.

The court also mandated mutual notification for COVID-19 symptoms/testing and specific protocols for exchanges, but declined to include a police clause.

The respondent father brought a motion for in-person and video access to the parties' child during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The applicant mother did not oppose the access but brought a cross-motion regarding vaccinations, which was adjourned due to short notice.

Applying the best interests of the child test and the principle of maximum contact under the Divorce Act, the court granted the respondent temporary access on alternating weekends and virtual access twice a week, subject to Covid-19 safety protocols.

A timetable was set for the cross-motion.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking immediate equal time-sharing of the parties' three-year-old daughter, having not seen her since separation in February 2020 due to criminal charges and a court undertaking.

The applicant mother raised concerns about violence, criminal charges, the father's mental health, and COVID-19 safety.

The court, acting as Triage Judge during COVID-19 suspensions, determined that the request for immediate equal time-sharing with police enforcement was not urgent, given the serious allegations and the need for more information.

However, the general request for establishing some access was deemed potentially urgent.

The court ordered an expedited Case Conference to address temporary access, with strict limits on materials for any subsequent emergency hearing.

The Applicant father brought an urgent motion concerning the care of the parties' 10-year-old child, Logan, after the Respondent mother unilaterally changed the shared parenting arrangement following the father's self-quarantine due to COVID-19.

The father sought a return to the pre-existing shared custody status quo, while the mother sought a return to an earlier arrangement where the father had less time.

The court found that the mother failed to meet the high onus required to disturb the status quo on an interim motion, as her COVID-19 concerns had evaporated and her other complaints were long-standing.

The court ordered a return to the shared parenting schedule that was in place prior to the father's self-quarantine.

The father's request to provide childcare during the mother's working hours was dismissed, as was the mother's request to revert to an older access schedule.

The court also ordered Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement to determine the child's views and preferences.

The plaintiff brought an urgent, ex parte motion in writing for a certificate of pending litigation to be registered on the title of the home she shared with the deceased.

The plaintiff claimed an interest in the property based on a constructive trust.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that serving the estate trustee was impracticable or unnecessary, noting ongoing communications between the parties.

The motion was adjourned to be brought on notice, with an interim order preventing the estate from agreeing to a closing date for the sale of the property without consent or court order.

The applicant, Kossay El-Khodr, sought the court's interpretation of minutes of settlement signed with Northbridge Commercial Insurance Company and Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada.

The dispute centered on the distribution of $385,000 in settlement funds, contingent on the outcome of a Court of Appeal decision regarding the assignment of statutory accident benefits.

El-Khodr argued that the Court of Appeal's decision, which granted Northbridge an assignment of specific future medical and rehabilitation benefits but not all, did not fully trigger the conditions for payment to Northbridge as per the minutes of settlement, or that the contract was frustrated.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation, finding that Northbridge was wholly successful on the appeal as it obtained the specific assignments it had sought.

The court dismissed El-Khodr's arguments, concluding that the conditions in the minutes of settlement were met, and ordered the release of the $385,000 to Northbridge.

The applicant sought release from custody pending trial under s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as a material change in circumstances impacting his incarceration at the Central East Correctional Centre.

The court considered the applicant's extensive criminal record, including prior convictions for violence and non-compliance with court orders, and the serious nature of the current firearm-related charges.

Despite acknowledging the elevated risks of COVID-19 in correctional facilities, the court found that the applicant's history and the strength of the Crown's case meant that his release would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for judicial release was denied.

The applicant sought urgent relief regarding access to their fifteen-month-old child, Samuel, including unsupervised access and a modified 2-2-3 schedule.

The respondent opposed, arguing the matter was not urgent and brought a cross-motion for continued primary residence and the existing interim access schedule.

The court, applying the "urgency" test from the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession during the COVID-19 pandemic, found the initial access issue urgent but the request for an equal time-sharing schedule was not.

The court expanded the applicant's interim unsupervised access schedule, emphasizing the child's best interests and the parents' prior co-parenting involvement, while noting the Children's Aid Society found no ongoing violence.

The applicant's request for a 2/2/5 schedule was adjourned for a more fulsome record.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for an injunction, the court determined the costs of the motion.

The plaintiff argued costs should be in the cause, while the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs payable forthwith.

The court applied the presumptive 'pay as you go' rule under Rule 57.03, finding no reason to depart from it.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding the motion was not frivolous or an abuse of process.

Partial indemnity costs totaling $44,000 were awarded to the various defendants, with payment extended due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

This urgent motion concerns the temporary and final custody of a ten-year-old child whose mother recently passed away.

The maternal grandparents and a family friend seek temporary custody for the family friend, followed by joint temporary and final custody for the maternal grandparents, with the intention of the child relocating to Vietnam.

The biological father has had no contact with the child since 2015.

The court deemed the matter urgent, directed the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to provide services, and ordered the applicants to provide affidavit evidence of service on the father and to formally commence an Application.

The respondent brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 court suspension to set aside two final orders and seek leave to file an Answer, citing issues with previous counsel and an interest in a residential property.

The Triage Judge dismissed the urgency request, finding that the respondent's significant and self-created delays in addressing the matter, dating back to 2018, meant the issues did not meet the court's strict urgency criteria under the COVID-19 protocols.

The court emphasized that non-urgent matters would be dealt with once normal operations resumed and provided guidance on the brevity of materials for urgent motions.

This motion for directions in a settled class action concerned the interpretation of two ambiguous provisions within the settlement agreement related to claims administration.

The court was asked to clarify whether Article 4.3(5) provided a minimum or maximum period for claimants to correct deficiencies and whether Article 4.2(6) required a final assessment of all claims by 60 days post-deadline or merely a status report.

The court adopted the interpretation proposed by Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator, confirming that the Claims Administrator has discretion to grant extensions beyond 30 days for correcting deficiencies and that the 60-day report is a status update, not a final assessment.

The motion was unopposed by the defendants.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for contempt against the applicant mother for refusing access to their child, Tyler Dawn, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered the child's best interests and the safety concerns raised by the applicant regarding the respondent's adherence to COVID-19 protocols, including travel for access and the respondent's continued work outside his home.

Applying principles from Ribeiro v. Wright and Ruffolo v. David, the court found the applicant had justified reasons for suspending access.

The respondent's motion for contempt was dismissed, and his alternating weekend access was suspended for four weeks, with a provision for review.

The accused was tried on multiple historical sexual offence charges and a voyeurism charge arising from allegations by his stepdaughter over a lengthy period.

The court reviewed the complainant's evidence, the accused's denial, corroborative and contradictory family evidence, and the law governing reasonable doubt, delayed disclosure, and assessment of an accused's testimony.

While some details of the complainant's evidence were compelling, the court found central aspects of the allegations fundamentally incredible when considered against the totality of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances.

The defence evidence raised a reasonable doubt, and the Crown failed to prove any count beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant sought an urgent interim order prohibiting a funeral home from releasing the deceased's remains pending the resolution of an estate dispute.

The matter was reviewed by a triage judge under the COVID-19 protocol to determine urgency.

The court found that the matter was not urgent and declined to hear the motion before the resumption of regular court operations.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder and robbery, sought a bail review under s. 522 of the Criminal Code, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court agreed that the pandemic was a material change, granting jurisdiction to review the detention order.

However, the court found that the applicant's detention remained necessary on both the secondary and tertiary grounds.

Despite a strict proposed release plan involving house arrest and electronic monitoring, the court concluded there was a substantial likelihood the applicant would commit further offences and that his release would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice given the gravity and circumstances of the alleged offences.

The Crown sought a ruling on the voluntariness of statements made by the accused, Suthakaran, during a videotaped in-custody interview, intending to use them for cross-examination if he testified.

The defence argued the statements were involuntary due to oppressive circumstances during the interview.

The court found that despite the police's persistence and the accused's emotional state and repeated requests to end the interview, the circumstances did not amount to oppression.

The statements were deemed voluntary and admissible.

The applicant sought an interim Mareva injunction against the respondents and several related entities, alleging breaches of a co-owners agreement, a distribution order, and misappropriation of funds in a real estate development project.

The respondents brought a cross-motion for the release of occupancy fees.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion for a Mareva injunction, finding that the applicant failed to establish a strong prima facie case, a real risk of asset dissipation, or irreparable harm, and that the undertaking as to damages was insufficient.

The court granted the respondents' motion for the release of occupancy fees.

Dante Johnson, arrested for gun and drug offences, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained on secondary and tertiary grounds.

He asserted two material changes in circumstances: a new, suitable surety (his paternal grandmother) and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown conceded COVID-19 as a material change but opposed release.

The court conducted a de novo assessment, finding the new surety addressed the Justice of the Peace's concerns regarding supervision.

Despite the seriousness of the offences and strength of the Crown's case, the court determined that a reasonable person, informed of Charter values and the specific circumstances (accused's youth, first adult charges, strong release plan), would not lose confidence in the administration of justice.

Bail was granted with strict conditions.

The plaintiff, a general contractor, sought payment for construction work performed for the defendant, Great Lakes Food Company, based on unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.

The defendant counterclaimed for damages due to delay and deficiencies.

The court found that delays were primarily due to the defendant's poor planning and CFIA licensing issues, not the plaintiff.

The court allowed the plaintiff's claim for extras at a reasonable "shop rate" but disallowed overtime and reduced the trailer damage claim.

The defendant's claims for deficiencies in Room D were dismissed, but a credit was allowed for drain covers in Room H. The defendant's counterclaim for damages under the Construction Lien Act for an exaggerated lien was dismissed due to lack of proven damages.

The court found the defendant wrongfully terminated the contract.

Judgment was awarded to the plaintiff for $87,244 plus interest.