Superior Court of Justice

The respondent, L.R., brought a motion to admit fresh evidence at trial and to suspend the applicant, P.G.'s, parenting time, following P.G.'s breach of a consent order by removing a child from L.R.'s care.

The court granted the motion to admit fresh evidence, applying the four-part test from R. v. Palmer.

Despite finding P.G. in breach of the order, the court declined to suspend P.G.'s parenting time, reasoning that there was no immediate threat to the child's well-being, the summer parenting schedule would soon commence, and a final decision on parenting time was imminent at trial.

The court ordered P.G. to return the child to L.R.'s care by a specific date and for parenting time to resume according to the existing summer schedule, emphasizing parental encouragement for parenting time.

This was a temporary order pending final trial submissions.

The court considered costs submissions following a trial concerning a failed business venture.

Despite the plaintiffs' offers to settle and claims of the defendants' inappropriate conduct, and the defendants' counter-arguments, the court found that success was divided, or more accurately, a "divided failure." Given that litigation expenses approached $200,000 for each party while the amounts recovered were significantly less (within Small Claims Court jurisdiction for the plaintiffs), the court emphasized proportionality.

Ultimately, no costs were awarded to either party, as the litigation was not conducted in a reasonable manner and the conduct did not meet the threshold for elevated costs.

The plaintiff consulting firm brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant pharmaceutical company for unpaid invoices totaling $506,198.70 related to expert litigation services provided in a UK proceeding.

The defendant argued the fees exceeded litigation budgets and were unreasonable, and that the plaintiff was estopped from relying on a five-day notice of objection provision in the retainer agreement.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial as the budgets were not part of the contract, no timely written objections were made, and there was no evidence of promissory estoppel.

The plaintiff was awarded the full amount claimed, with pre-judgment interest capped at 5% per year under the Interest Act.

The applicant brought an urgent motion seeking child support based on imputed income, a restraining order, and continued payment of household expenses.

The respondent sought an interim parenting schedule.

The court imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes, ordered the respondent to continue paying household expenses, and established a new parenting time schedule.

The request for a restraining order was denied due to insufficient evidence of reasonable grounds for fear.

The plaintiff, Khris Paquette, sought an interim order for occupancy of his deceased mother's property or, alternatively, interim support from her estate.

The deceased's will left no provisions for the plaintiff, naming her brother as the sole beneficiary and estate trustee.

The court found that while the deceased was not providing direct support immediately before her death, a moral obligation existed for the estate to provide support due to the plaintiff's disabilities and limited income.

The request for interim occupancy was denied due to the plaintiff's history of destructive behavior and inability to live alone, and the potential for dissipating the estate's main asset.

However, the court granted interim financial support of $200 per month, finding a demonstrated need despite the plaintiff's lack of specific evidence on the amount sought.

The offender was convicted by a jury of two counts of sexual assault against his great-great nephew, who was between three and five years old at the time.

The offences involved anal intercourse and a significant breach of trust.

The Crown sought a 14-year consecutive sentence, while the defence proposed four to six years concurrent.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, rejecting the offender's expression of remorse due to his false testimony at trial.

Applying the principle of totality, the court imposed a global concurrent sentence of eight years in custody, along with mandatory weapons, DNA, non-communication, and SOIRA orders.

Tara Atkinson, a fitness instructor, sued her employers for injuries.

Her minor daughter, Maya Atkinson, also made a Family Law Act claim.

Tara Atkinson settled her personal claim and sought court approval under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the settlement of Maya's derivative claim.

The court found the proposed $5,000 settlement for the minor fair and reasonable, noting that the loss of care and companionship was largely attributable to pre-existing family dynamics rather than the mother's injuries, and the overall settlement reached the defendants' policy limits.

The court approved the settlement for the minor.

This addendum to a trial judgment addresses unresolved parenting time arrangements for two young children following the mother's approved relocation from Marathon to Espanola, ON.

The court considered the father's request for a weekly monthly schedule and the mother's proposal for a 4-5 day monthly schedule, balancing the children's need for frequent contact with the father against the challenges of long-distance travel and school attendance.

The court ordered a five-day monthly parenting schedule, to be arranged around statutory holidays or PD days to minimize missed school.

It also determined specific holiday parenting time, including summer and March Break, and clarified exchange locations and communication methods.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking a parenting schedule for his two-year-old child.

The respondent mother sought a highly restricted, supervised, and gradual reintroduction of parenting time, citing past volatility and criminal charges against the father.

The court found no evidence of risk to the child from the father, noting that the mother had been found to be the aggressor in previous incidents and had unfairly created the recent lack of contact.

The court preferred and ordered the father's proposed parenting plan, which included a reasonably expeditious path towards shared parenting time, including overnights, dismissing the mother's more restrictive proposal.

This case concerns the contractual interpretation of a "Life of Mine" supply agreement for liquid sodium cyanide between Kinross (as buyer) and Cyanco (as seller).

Kinross sought a declaration that the agreement did not preclude it from sourcing solid sodium cyanide from other suppliers and converting it to liquid for its mining operations.

The court dismissed Kinross's claim, finding that such an action would conflict with the agreement's terms, which established Cyanco as the sole supplier of liquid sodium cyanide required by Kinross's mines for their operations.

The court emphasized reading the contract as a whole, giving words their ordinary meaning, and considering commercial reasonableness.

This endorsement follows a Mareva injunction order, addressing outstanding issues of asset disclosure, living and business operating expenses, and limitations to the injunction.

The court ordered the Lin Defendants to attend examinations on their assets within two weeks, validated service on them as of November 15, 2022, and directed them to file a Statement of Defence within 30 days.

The Mareva injunction was continued, and the parties were ordered to re-attend to finalize limitations and expenses.

The court also addressed the potential sale of two Bentley vehicles held overseas.

This is a costs endorsement following a series of motions where the defendants (Royal Bank of Canada and others) and a non-party law firm (LD Law) were largely successful against the plaintiff.

The motions concerned a recusal application, a privilege claim regarding a property transfer from the deceased's estate, and a motion to compel the estate trustee to pass accounts.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants and full indemnity costs to LD Law, finding the plaintiff's positions meritless and contributing to litigation delay.

The plaintiff's claim of impecuniosity was rejected due to insufficient evidence and the principle that impecuniosity should not allow parties to disregard court rules with impunity.

Omer Arshi was found guilty of aggravated assault and Salvatore Caravella of common assault, stemming from a bar fight on New Year's Eve 2017-18.

The court determined fit sentences, considering the gravity of the offences, the degree of responsibility of each offender, and various aggravating and mitigating factors.

Arshi received a 15-month conditional sentence followed by 15 months probation, with conditions including house arrest.

Caravella received a suspended sentence and 12 months probation.

Ancillary orders for DNA and weapons prohibitions were also imposed on both.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking a Mareva injunction against May Anis and BNP Advisors Inc., a finding of contempt against May Anis, and a variation of an order to make May Anis and BNP Advisors Inc. solely responsible for the Receiver's fees.

The motion arose from a shareholder and employment dispute where May Anis repeatedly produced forged bank records, lied under oath, and provided false information to the court and an investigative receiver.

The court granted the Mareva injunction, found May Anis in contempt due to her egregious and repetitive dishonest conduct, and ordered her and BNP Advisors Inc. to bear all Receiver's fees.

The plaintiff was awarded costs of the motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an order for mandatory mediation with the defendant by September 25, 2023.

The defendant opposed, arguing that mediation should be delayed until early 2024 to allow for the completion of outstanding undertakings crucial for a full appreciation of the claim.

The court ordered mediation to take place by October 31, 2023.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's request for costs, finding the motion unnecessary given the defendant's reasonable proposals for a slightly later mediation date and the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate prejudice.

The court awarded costs of $500 to the defendant, emphasizing the importance of cooperation, communication, and common sense in civil proceedings.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's slip and fall action, prompted by the plaintiff's daughter advising that her 86-year-old mother, Joanne Weigen, wished to discontinue the lawsuit and had not suffered injuries from the fall.

Concerns about Ms. Weigen's mental capacity and bipolar disorder were raised.

The court, after a cursory examination of the plaintiff and questioning her daughter under oath, appointed the daughter as litigation guardian and approved the dismissal of the action without costs, satisfying the requirements of Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Lorence Hud appealed a decision by the Ontario Court of Justice that upheld the Chief Firearms Officer's (CFO) revocation of his firearms licence.

Hud argued the lower court erred by refusing a Charter application and denying an adjournment.

The Superior Court clarified the distinct administrative nature of the CFO's role from the Crown's office and applied the appropriate standards of review.

The court found no error in the lower court's handling of the Charter issue (as it was not properly advanced) or the adjournment request (given the applicant's burden and preparation time).

The appeal was dismissed, confirming the revocation of Hud's firearms licence.

The minor plaintiff, Jerome Pizzorusso, represented by his litigation guardian Marlene Pizzorusso, brought a motion to approve a proposed settlement for injuries sustained after being struck by the defendant's car.

The court adjourned the motion due to deficiencies in the materials, specifically the lack of updated medical evidence from a physician confirming the resolution of the minor plaintiff's head injury symptoms and the procedural requirement to commence a separate application to settle the accident benefits claim.

The plaintiffs brought a negligence claim against the school board, principal, and vice-principal for injuries sustained by the student plaintiff during a schoolyard assault by other students.

The plaintiffs alleged that the school failed to properly supervise the students and investigate prior incidents of bullying, which culminated in an assault that caused permanent tinnitus.

The court found that while the school breached the standard of care in failing to investigate a prior incident and losing an accident report, these breaches did not cause the assault, which was a sudden and unexpected event during a hidden game of tackle football.

The claim was dismissed as the plaintiffs failed to establish cause in fact.

The parties, Jennifer Dunford (Applicant) and Tyler Dunford (Respondent), separated in 2020.

A consent order in July 2022 set child support.

The Respondent moved to reduce child support based on a new, lower-paying job.

The Applicant cross-moved to adjust child support based on 2022 incomes and for interim spousal support.

The court addressed a procedural issue, treating the child support motions as motions to change a final order and the spousal support motion as a temporary order request.

The court determined the Respondent's income for child support based on his current, lower salary, amending the previous order.

The Applicant's motion for interim spousal support was dismissed, as she did not establish a prima facie case for relief.