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 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 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 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.