Scott M. Merrifield

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the applicant in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the applicant in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking indefinite spousal support and child support.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the motion to change.

The parties had previously executed comprehensive minutes of settlement and a final release regarding spousal support, which were incorporated into a 2008 court order.

The court applied the LMP and Willick framework, finding no material change in circumstances that was not contemplated by the final agreement.

The court also found no genuine issue for trial regarding child support, as the respondent had met all obligations.

The respondent's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the applicant's motion to change was dismissed.

The Applicant brought a motion for a finding of contempt against the Respondent for unilaterally denying him access to their son.

The Respondent had denied access based on information from the Applicant's estranged ex-girlfriend concerning an alleged altercation and steroid use.

The court found the Respondent in contempt, ruling that the alleged incident did not constitute a "serious risk of harm" to the child, which is the only legal justification for breaching a court order.

The Applicant's original unsupervised access was reinstated, and makeup access was granted.

The Respondent's cross-motion for an interim variation of access and a s. 30 assessment was denied leave and adjourned to a Case Conference, as no urgency or clear case for relief was established.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to set aside a separation agreement.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the summary judgment procedure was unavailable because the applicant had also claimed a divorce.

The court dismissed the objection, finding that the rules only prohibit using summary judgment to obtain the divorce itself.

On the merits, the court found the separation agreement was grossly improvident, as the applicant waived substantial spousal support, her interest in the matrimonial home, and equalization of the respondent's pension without independent legal advice.

The court concluded the respondent exerted his will over the applicant, resulting in an unconscionable agreement, and exercised its discretion under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act to set it aside.

The respondent brought a motion seeking a stay of the applicant’s Ontario proceeding and an order requiring the children’s return to Nova Scotia, arguing that the parties and children had relocated there and that Ontario lacked jurisdiction.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought temporary custody and a declaration that Ontario had jurisdiction.

The court found that the applicant did not satisfy the "ordinary residence" test under the Divorce Act and that the children were not habitually resident in Ontario within the meaning of the Children’s Law Reform Act because the respondent had not consented to their return.

However, jurisdiction was properly exercised under s. 22(1)(b) of the CLRA because the children were physically present in Ontario, substantial evidence regarding their best interests existed there, and the balance of convenience favoured Ontario.

The respondent’s motion was dismissed and the applicant was granted temporary custody and primary care of the children.

The respondent sought costs following a motion brought by the applicant to restrict the respondent's access to their child, require a section 30 custody and access assessment, and mandate drug and alcohol testing.

The motion was largely dismissed on June 16, 2015, with only incidental orders made regarding disclosure of records, alcohol consumption restrictions during access, and video recording prohibitions.

The court awarded costs to the respondent as the successful party, but significantly reduced the claimed amount due to excessive hours billed and work not directly related to the motion.

The applicant sought indefinite spousal support of $1,000 per month due to a disability that rendered her unable to work.

The respondent proposed $400 per month for a limited duration.

The parties were married for seven years.

The court balanced the applicant's indefinite needs against the short duration of the marriage and the respondent's financial circumstances, including his new child.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court ordered the respondent to pay $622 per month for approximately six and a half years, and to secure this obligation through a life insurance trust.

The applicant, a wheelchair user, was injured when a bus stopped suddenly.

The insurer terminated attendant care and housekeeping benefits after 104 weeks, finding she did not suffer a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant brought a motion for interim benefits pending arbitration.

The arbitrator found the applicant established a prima facie case that she suffered a total and permanent loss of use of her left arm, meeting the catastrophic impairment definition.

The arbitrator also found urgency and hardship, as the applicant required additional attendant care following her husband's death to avoid moving to a long-term care facility.

Interim attendant care benefits of $1,117.25 per month were awarded, but interim housekeeping benefits were denied.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action following the death of their infant son from a bowel obstruction shortly after being discharged from the emergency room.

The trial judge had made adverse credibility findings against the appellants, accepted the respondent physician's evidence, and relied on the respondent's expert opinion that the standard of care was met.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or his assessment of the expert evidence regarding the standard of care.

The plaintiffs' medical malpractice action was dismissed at trial, but the trial judge assessed damages totalling $35,000 across multiple plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Divisional Court, which transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeal due to the total assessed amount exceeding its $25,000 monetary jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs moved to quash the appeal and transfer it back to the Divisional Court, arguing that each plaintiff's individual claim was under $25,000.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that all dismissed claims must be added together to determine the total assessed amount for the purpose of appellate jurisdiction under section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The insurer appealed an arbitration decision awarding the insured a special award of $150,000 under s. 282(10) of the Insurance Act for unreasonably withholding and delaying attendant care and housekeeping benefits.

The Director's Delegate upheld the finding that a special award was warranted, noting the insurer failed to properly advise the insured of available benefits, improperly reduced attendant care, and delayed catastrophic impairment assessments.

However, the Delegate found the $150,000 quantum was disproportionate and overly reliant on a percentage-based calculation rather than the principles of rationality and proportionality.

The special award was reduced to $50,000.

The insurer's appeal regarding the calculation of credits for previously paid benefits was dismissed.

The applicant, having previously been found catastrophically impaired, sought determination of the quantum of attendant care benefits, interest, and a special award.

Based on the parties' agreement, the arbitrator fixed the net attendant care benefits at $100,787.65 and awarded interest on both attendant care and housekeeping benefits.

The arbitrator further ordered the insurer to pay a special award of $150,000 under section 282(10) of the Insurance Act, finding that the insurer had unreasonably withheld and delayed benefit payments through multiple compounding breaches.

The applicant sustained a catastrophic brain injury in a motor vehicle accident, requiring 24-hour attendant care.

The insurer, despite knowing the severity of the impairment, failed to inform the applicant of her entitlement to enhanced benefits, arbitrarily reduced her paid attendant care based on flawed occupational therapy assessments, and failed to arrange required designated assessment centre (DAC) evaluations.

The arbitrator found the insurer's conduct unreasonable and in breach of its statutory obligations.

The applicant was awarded $178,928.33 in retroactive attendant care benefits, interest on overdue payments, and a special award for the insurer's unreasonable withholding and delay of benefits.

The appellant father appealed a decision setting aside a trial judgment that had granted him custody of the child and ordering a new trial.

The appeal judge had found that the trial was unfair due to the trial judge recalling the mother to the stand on her own motion, a ten-month delay in rendering a decision, and the trial judge reopening the trial on her own motion for further evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the appeal judge's conclusion that neither party received a fair trial and dismissed the appeal, ordering costs of $4,000 to the respondent.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal varied the order to grant the moving party leave to intervene as an added party pursuant to Rule 13.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting that the assumption that existing parties would protect claims of community use appeared to be in doubt.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until they were terminated by the insurer.

The insurer subsequently sought to compel the applicant to attend a neurological assessment under section 42 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, shortly before the scheduled arbitration hearing.

The applicant refused to attend, arguing the assessment was not authorized.

The arbitrator found that the insurer's notice was technically defective because it failed to link the assessment to a specific benefit claimed and did not warn of the consequences of non-attendance.

Furthermore, the timing of the request was highly prejudicial to the applicant, as the insurer had notice of the potential brain injury months earlier but delayed its request until the eve of the arbitration.

The arbitrator ruled the assessment was not authorized.

The insurer brought a motion seeking production of the applicant's examination for discovery transcript from a related tort action to test his credibility at an arbitration hearing.

The applicant opposed production, relying on the deemed undertaking rule.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, holding that only the court in which the tort action was commenced has the jurisdiction to grant relief from the implied or deemed undertaking rule.

The arbitrator disagreed with previous FSCO decisions that found concurrent jurisdiction to grant such relief under the Insurance Act.