Superior Court of Justice

The applicant, Fiona Bagust-Homes, brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, seeking to impute an annual income of $200,000 to the respondent, Gregory Devine, based on his historical earnings.

The respondent, currently unemployed, argued the motion was premature, proposed a lower imputed income of $75,000, and contended the applicant had no need for support due to her received capital.

The court found the respondent intentionally unemployed and imputed an income of $200,000.

It ordered temporary child support based on a set-off of table amounts and temporary spousal support at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court also directed that support payments be made from the respondent's held capital and ordered him to maintain a life insurance policy as security.

Leblon Carpentry Inc. brought a motion seeking an extension of a court-ordered deadline to provide answers to undertakings from its examination for discovery, including a *nunc pro tunc* extension and further time for an outstanding undertaking.

The motion was opposed by Qi Tang, who sought to preclude Leblon from relying on the late answers.

The court dismissed Leblon's motion, finding that Leblon failed to provide a sufficient and convincing explanation for its non-compliance and did not demonstrate honest and meaningful efforts to provide responsive answers.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to court orders, particularly in summary lien proceedings, and ruled that Leblon could not rely on the information subject to the undertakings requested by Qi Tang that was not provided by the original deadline.

Costs were awarded to Qi Tang.

The Applicants sought a declaration that the Respondents were responsible for coverage of a professional liability claim under an excess liability policy.

The policy was a "claims made and reported" policy, requiring claims to be made and reported during the policy period.

The Applicants' insurance broker failed to report the claim to the Respondents until three years after the policy period expired.

The court found that the "claims made and reported" requirement was a condition precedent to coverage and was not met.

The court rejected arguments that the Respondents suffered no prejudice or that other policy conditions were inconsistent.

The court also declined to grant relief from forfeiture, noting that the Applicants would not suffer prejudice as their broker had admitted negligence and agreed to indemnify them.

The application was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the Respondents.

Allan Clayton Eggleton was found guilty of 17 counts, including drug trafficking (fentanyl, methamphetamine, cocaine) and numerous firearms offences.

He absconded prior to sentencing, leading the Crown to successfully apply for sentencing in absentia under s. 475(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the dangerous nature of the drugs, the unlawful possession of loaded firearms, and the offender's lengthy criminal record and disregard for court orders.

Mitigating factors, including a difficult upbringing and Indigenous heritage, were noted but largely negated by his absconding.

The court imposed a total sentence of 10 years imprisonment, comprising consecutive sentences for weapons and drug offences, along with mandatory ancillary orders for DNA and a lifetime weapons ban.

The appellant, a teacher, was convicted of sexual exploitation and assault involving multiple students.

The appeal focused on whether the trial judge adequately analyzed the potential for inadvertent tainting of witness evidence due to extensive discussions among complainants and other witnesses.

The appellate court found that while the trial judge acknowledged the risk, his reasons lacked sufficient analysis and articulation of how he concluded the evidence was reliable despite the "extreme danger" of tainting.

The court emphasized that inadvertent tainting affects reliability, not just credibility, and requires a clear explanation of how the concern was resolved.

The trial addressed highly contentious issues of decision-making responsibility, parenting time, child support, and the child's surname.

The court found the mother had engaged in alienating behaviour, including false allegations of abuse and flight risk.

The court ordered joint parallel decision-making, with specific areas of final authority for each parent, and an equal 2-2-3 rotating parenting time schedule.

Child support arrears were dismissed, and the child's surname was changed to a hyphenated form including the father's surname, and the father was added to the birth registration.

The plaintiff law firm sought an interlocutory injunction against a former employee to prevent client solicitation and disclosure of confidential information.

The court applied the three-part test for injunctive relief, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the employment contract and breach, irreparable harm due to difficulty quantifying lost referrals, and that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff.

The injunction was granted, restricting the defendant from soliciting clients, disclosing confidential information, and requiring her to forward client communications to the plaintiff firm.

Costs for the motion were reserved to the trial judge, except for a third party (Grillo Law) who was awarded partial indemnity costs for successfully excluding privileged evidence.

The defendant, Aescape Inc., brought a motion seeking to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction, stay the action on the basis of forum non conveniens, and set aside service.

The plaintiff, Intercap Equity Inc., alleged a breach of an oral option agreement to invest in Aescape.

The court found that Intercap established a "good arguable case" that a contract was formed in Ontario, satisfying the "real and substantial connection" test for jurisdiction.

The court also determined that Aescape failed to demonstrate that New York was a "clearly more appropriate forum" to displace Ontario's jurisdiction.

Consequently, the motion was dismissed on all grounds.

The defendant Aedan Helmer, a reporter, brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss an action for invasion of privacy and civil conspiracy brought by Paula Riopelle.

The action stemmed from an article published about criminal charges Riopelle faced.

The court found the article related to a matter of public interest due to the open court principle.

Riopelle failed to demonstrate that her claims had substantial merit or that Helmer had no valid defence, particularly regarding the conspiracy claim (lack of agreement) and privacy claims (publicly available information, no false light, no reckless disregard).

The court also found the public interest in protecting freedom of expression outweighed the public interest in allowing the proceeding to continue.

The motion was granted, and the action against Helmer was dismissed with costs.

This endorsement addresses a post-trial case conference concerning an alleged arithmetic error in the Net Family Property (NFP) equalization calculation and, primarily, the issue of costs.

The Applicant sought to increase the NFP equalization payment by $3,000 due to an unincluded date-of-marriage debt, which the court dismissed, finding the loan was not fully advanced until after the marriage.

Regarding costs, the Applicant sought $150,000 in full indemnity costs, arguing her pre-trial offer to settle triggered Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the Applicant's offer was not "crystal clear" regarding the treatment of a matrimonial home loan, thus not activating Rule 18(14).

Considering the parties' conduct and settlement efforts, the court awarded the Applicant partial indemnity costs of $90,000, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness.

The plaintiffs previously obtained a Mareva injunction against the defendants.

The parties returned to court to address alleged deficiencies in the defendants' asset disclosure affidavits, requests for living and business operating expenses, and potential limits on the injunction.

The court found the defendants' affidavits deficient and ordered further and better affidavits with supporting documentation.

The court also granted interim interim orders allowing specific monthly amounts for living and business operating expenses, but found it premature to limit the scope of the Mareva injunction until complete asset information was provided.

The defendants, Sudbury Trail Plan Association (STPA) and Shelley Talevi, brought motions seeking leave to bring further motions, an order compelling the plaintiff Gaetan Lamothe to undergo four independent medical assessments, and leave to deliver late expert reports.

The plaintiffs opposed these motions.

The court dismissed all motions, finding that the defendants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their significant delay in seeking the assessments and filing reports, which occurred almost four years after the plaintiffs' expert reports and after two fixed trial dates had been set.

The court determined that the alleged "substantial or unexpected changes" in the plaintiff's condition were not sufficient to justify the delay and that granting the motions would cause undue prejudice to the plaintiffs by necessitating an adjournment of the lengthy jury trial, leading to lost pre-trial income and statutory deductible indexation.

The plaintiff, Gary Sauve, brought a motion seeking procedural relief to pursue claims, primarily against his former employer, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), for alleged harms leading to his discharge.

He also sought to re-litigate multiple proceedings previously pursued in the Federal Court of Canada.

The court found the plaintiff's materials incomprehensible and unsupported by admissible evidence.

The motion was dismissed, as the continuation of the action was deemed manifestly vexatious, an abuse of process, and the claims were long since statute-barred.

The plaintiff's requests for state-funded counsel, a fee waiver, injunctive relief, and joining additional defendants were also denied due to lack of supporting evidence.

The applicant brought a motion regarding an international child abduction claim.

The court noted that the Children's Lawyer had not been notified and a first meeting had not been held, as required by the Family Law Rules.

Given the issues of credibility and the need for expert evidence on foreign law, the court adjourned the motion, ordered the involvement of the Children's Lawyer, and scheduled a trial of the issues.

The applicant, Christopher Punzo, charged with possession of cocaine for trafficking, sought the return of $80,620 in seized cash under s. 462.34 of the Criminal Code to cover his legal expenses.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to satisfy the onus that he had no other assets or means available to meet his reasonable legal expenses.

The judge determined that the applicant had misrepresented his financial situation and possessed significant undisclosed funds and equity in a condominium, concluding that access to the seized funds was not "truly necessary."

The succeeding estate trustee and beneficiaries brought a motion against the former estate trustee, Lorali Queripel, for damages due to breach of fiduciary duty, punitive damages, and costs.

Lorali Queripel had failed to comply with multiple court orders to account for the Estate of Betty Shaddock and transfer assets, and had mismanaged estate property.

The court found Lorali Queripel liable for damages totaling $175,147.98 for her breaches, including failure to communicate, account, sell property, and pay expenses.

Punitive damages of $50,000 were awarded due to her egregious conduct and repeated non-compliance with court orders.

Full indemnity costs of $49,601.09 were also awarded against her.

This judgment concludes a four-day trial addressing child support and spousal support.

The court determined the applicant's income for support purposes, calculated child support under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, and assessed the respondent's entitlement to spousal support.

The court declined to impute additional income to the applicant from reimbursed business expenses, finding them legitimate.

For child support, the court ordered the applicant to pay a set-off amount plus an additional $100 per month to ensure similar standards of living for the children in both households, considering the income disparity and the respondent's higher housing costs.

The respondent's claim for spousal support, both compensatory and non-compensatory, was dismissed, as the court found no economic sacrifices made by him during the marriage and that his mental health did not impede his ability to work.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for specified access between a child and his maternal grandparents.

The child's foster parent brought a cross-motion to be added as a party to the child protection proceeding.

The child had been in the foster parent's care for over two years and expressed a strong desire not to have contact with the maternal grandparents.

The court granted the foster parent's motion to be added as a party, finding that the foster parent had a legal interest, was capable of putting forward a plan of care, and was necessary to determine the issues.

The court dismissed the Society's motion for specified access, ordering instead that any access between the child and the maternal grandparents be subject to the child's wishes, as confirmed by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The applicants sought to set aside two consent judgments obtained by Owens Wright LLP against its insolvent clients, Greenvilla, arguing abuse of process and fraudulent preference under the Assignments and Preferences Act.

The court found that Owens Wright obtained the judgments through abusive maneuvers, including failure to provide proper notice and ignoring a Notice of Intent to Defend from Greenvilla's receiver.

The court also found the transactions to be fraudulent preferences, citing numerous indicia of fraud and the non-arm's length relationship between Owens Wright and Greenvilla.

The judgments were declared null and void, and Owens Wright was ordered to repay the funds.

The court issued a ruling on the formulation of jury questions in a civil trial involving a motor vehicle accident.

The judge addressed disagreements between the plaintiff and defendant counsel regarding the wording and inclusion of specific questions.

Key determinations included the necessity of separate questions for past versus future losses and different damage types, the appropriateness of using the term "negligent" rather than "liable" the requirement for a distinct causation question, and the decision to exclude a question asking for particulars of negligence, given the straightforward nature of the rear-end collision case.