S. Corthorn

The applicants brought a motion for approval of a settlement reached on behalf of a minor who was injured in a dog attack.

The proposed settlement included damages, interest, and costs totaling $65,135.82.

The court adjourned the motion, finding that additional evidence was required regarding the minor's psychological injuries, future surgical needs, apportionment of travel expenses, liability compromise, and the proposed investment of the settlement funds outside of the Accountant for the Superior Court of Justice.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a 13-year-old complainant whom he met in downtown Ottawa.

The accused argued that the complainant fabricated the events to avoid punishment for skipping school and shoplifting, and alternatively raised the defence of mistaken belief of age.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejecting the defence's arguments regarding inconsistencies and motive to fabricate.

The court also found the accused failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age.

The accused was found guilty of both charges, with a stay to be entered on one conviction.

The respondent wife brought a motion for interim relief regarding the matrimonial home, seeking a vesting order, exclusive possession, or an order dispensing with the applicant husband's consent to refinance a line of credit secured against the home.

The court dismissed the requests for a vesting order and exclusive possession, finding them premature before an equalization order or determination of the separation date.

However, the court granted an order dispensing with the husband's consent to allow the wife to refinance the home up to $187,000 to reduce her monthly carrying costs.

The court also struck several paragraphs of the husband's factum for being inflammatory.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment on a mortgage against the mortgagor and the guarantor.

The court found that the mortgagor was properly served and noted in default, granting judgment against her for the principal, interest, and costs.

However, the court found that the guarantor was not properly served personally, as the statement of claim was left with his son at the mortgagor's address.

The noting in default against the guarantor was invalid, and the motion against him was adjourned.

The plaintiff commenced a $1,000,000 professional negligence action against the defendant dentist, alleging an allergic reaction to latex during treatment.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

Despite multiple adjournments and court orders over 15 months, the self-represented plaintiff failed to advance the litigation or produce any expert evidence to support her claim.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial as the plaintiff failed to provide the requisite expert evidence to establish the standard of care, breach, or causation.

The applicants were successful on an interim motion permitting the individual applicant to resume his day-to-day involvement in the parties' businesses.

The court was asked to determine the costs of the motion.

The respondents argued costs should be in the cause, while the applicants sought substantial indemnity costs payable immediately.

The court found that the respondent's conduct in unilaterally ousting the applicant without colour of right justified an order of costs in any event of the cause.

However, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing them at $23,810.59 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The applicant mother travelled to Nigeria with her two children for a holiday but was unable to return to Canada because the youngest child's Canadian passport had expired.

The respondent father, who resides in Nigeria, refused to consent to the passport renewal.

The applicant brought a motion for substituted service, leave to proceed without notice, and an order dispensing with the father's consent for the passport renewal.

The court dismissed the request for substituted service due to lack of evidence but granted leave to proceed without notice.

The court granted the applicant temporary sole custody and permission to travel with the children to Canada without the respondent's consent.

The father brought a motion for interim custody of the parties' one-year-old child, and the mother brought a cross-motion for child and spousal support.

The mother had unilaterally left the matrimonial home with the child, and the father subsequently sold the home without her consent.

The court found the mother had been the primary caregiver since birth and her departure was not a tactical maneuver, whereas the father's sale of the home prioritized his own interests.

The court ordered that the child's primary residence remain with the mother, granted the father specified parenting time, and ordered the father to pay retroactive child and spousal support.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for environmental contamination of his properties caused by dry cleaning chemicals originating from the adjacent property owned by the corporate defendant.

The individual defendant, who owned another adjacent residential property, moved for summary judgment dismissing the claims against him in negligence, nuisance, trespass, and statutory liability.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that genuine issues for trial existed because determining the individual defendant's liability required a comprehensive understanding of complex and evolving expert opinions regarding the source and migration of the contaminants, which necessitated oral testimony and cross-examination at trial.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking reinstatement of access to the parties’ two children after the respondent father unilaterally terminated the existing alternating-week parenting schedule following service of the application for custody and support.

The court found that the prior arrangement, which had operated for approximately 15 months, constituted the status quo and that no compelling reasons had been established to justify altering it.

The father’s unilateral restriction of the mother’s access was found to stem from an erroneous belief that he could control the children’s access and from a reaction to the litigation.

Applying principles from interim custody jurisprudence, the court held that compelling reasons are required to disturb the status quo on an interim motion and that shared parenting should be encouraged where feasible.

Access was therefore reinstated gradually, returning the parties to the previous alternating week schedule.