Self-represented

The applicant sought appointment as succeeding estate trustee of her late father's estate.

The applicant had previously challenged the validity of her father's will and codicil in a separate proceeding, which was settled in March 2023 with the applicant receiving the entire residue of the estate.

The applicant now sought to be appointed estate trustee to pursue a negligence claim against the lawyer who drafted the will to recover her personal legal fees incurred in the prior proceeding.

The court denied the application, finding that appointing the applicant would create a conflict of interest, that reopening the settled prior proceeding would constitute an abuse of process, and that a serious limitations issue existed under the Trustee Act.

The plaintiff sought leave to issue an alias writ of seizure and sale and a notice of garnishment against a judgment debtor who had changed his name and used multiple aliases to evade enforcement of a judgment.

The defendant had been convicted of mail and wire fraud in the United States, ordered to pay restitution, and subsequently deported to Canada where he fraudulently obtained a name change.

After locating the defendant in Niagara-on-the-Lake through investigative efforts, the plaintiff brought an ex parte motion for leave to issue enforcement mechanisms in the defendant's legal name and known aliases.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff had satisfied the low evidentiary threshold for leave and that it was in the interests of justice to permit enforcement against the defendant's aliases to prevent further evasion.

This is a supplementary endorsement addressing the requirements for issuing a writ of possession under Rule 60.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court clarified that when a moving party seeks leave to issue a writ of possession on an ex parte basis after judgment has been issued, "sufficient notice of the proceeding" requires that all occupants receive full particulars of the judgment.

The court found that the plaintiff's template Notice Demanding Possession was deficient because it failed to attach a copy of the judgment and was ambiguous regarding whether judgment had actually been obtained, leaving occupants uncertain about their obligation to vacate or right to seek relief.

This is a costs endorsement following a family law trial.

The applicant was largely successful on the issues litigated, including parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and restrictions on the respondent's attendance at the applicant's residence.

The respondent prevailed on certain travel-related issues.

The court awarded costs to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, apportioning the award to reflect the divided success and the difficulty in determining time allocation across contested issues.

The appellant was convicted at trial in Ontario Court of Justice on nine counts including uttering threats, assault, assault by choking, assault with a weapon, and mischief against his former spouse.

On summary conviction appeal, the appellant raised grounds of appeal including reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellate judge found that the trial judge's extensive questioning of the appellant during cross-examination—intervening on 20 separate occasions with approximately 70 questions—created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The trial judge appeared to align herself with the Crown's case and pre-judged the appellant's credibility.

The appellate court set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial.

The plaintiffs, who were previously found to have fraudulently over-encumbered two properties and granted sham mortgages to frustrate creditors, commenced an action against the Public Guardian and Trustee challenging the Accountant's interpretation of a prior court order regarding the distribution of sale proceeds.

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Accountant owed money and an order for payment.

The defendant sought dismissal on the basis that the action was barred under the Public Guardian and Trustee Act and that proper notice had not been provided under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiffs had not alleged bad faith, that the action was statute-barred, and that the required notice had not been provided.

The applicant sought a declaration that $525,000 provided to his son and daughter-in-law in 2011 to purchase a home was a loan to be held in constructive or resulting trust, rather than a gift.

The respondents contended the money was a gift and that the application was time-barred.

The court found the money was clearly a gift based on the signed gift letter, the applicant's admission of never requesting repayment, his payment of rent to the respondents, and his knowledge that he was not on title.

The court also found the application statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act, as the claim accrued in 2011 and the application was brought in 2024.

The court dismissed an action brought by self-represented plaintiffs under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for being frivolous and vexatious.

The statement of claim contained disjointed allegations of fraud, defamation, and discriminatory practices without articulating any legally recognized cause of action or providing particulars to support the claims.

The pleading included inflammatory references to serious crimes, exaggerated damage claims, and unexplained attachments.

The court found the action incapable of success and riddled with hallmarks of vexatious litigation.

This is a costs decision following a trial in which the plaintiff, a self-represented Ph.D. student, brought claims against his academic supervisor, the University of Ottawa, and a former friend.

The plaintiff alleged that his supervisor breached his responsibilities and conspired with the former friend to frustrate his academic progress and obtain free labour.

The plaintiff was entirely unsuccessful on all allegations.

The court found that the plaintiff's conduct in adding his former friend as a defendant after the friend refused to provide false evidence constituted unreasonable and improper conduct that lengthened the proceedings.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis but the court awarded costs on an enhanced partial indemnity basis to account for the plaintiff's misconduct.

Following a seven-year marriage between a Senegalese immigrant woman with minimal education and a university-educated man, the parties separated in 2012.

The trial addressed parenting arrangements for two teenage children, equalization of family property, and spousal support.

The court found that the respondent father had been inconsistent in exercising parenting time and had failed to maintain contact with his children despite having their phone numbers.

The court ordered that parenting time be in accordance with the children's wishes.

For equalization, the court found the matrimonial home was the only asset that could be reliably valued, with equity of approximately $64,000 at separation, entitling the applicant to $32,000.

The court awarded retroactive spousal support as a lump sum of $18,623, finding the applicant entitled to support on both compensatory and needs bases, given her role as primary caregiver, limited English proficiency at separation, and the respondent's failure to pay consistent child support.

The court, upon referral from the registrar's office following a written request from the defendant's counsel, reviewed the statement of claim and determined that it may be frivolous and vexatious.

The court directed the registrar to provide notice to the plaintiff in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the action.

The action was stayed pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The registrar was directed to accept no further filings except the plaintiff's written submissions in accordance with Rule 2.1.01(3).

The court retained seizin of the matter.

Following a seven-year marriage between a Senegalese immigrant woman with minimal education and a university-educated man, the parties separated in 2012.

The trial addressed parenting arrangements for two teenage children, equalization of family property, and spousal support.

The court found that the respondent father had been inconsistent in exercising parenting time and had failed to maintain contact with his children despite having their phone numbers.

The court ordered that parenting time be in accordance with the children's wishes.

For equalization, the court found the matrimonial home was the only asset that could be reliably valued, with equity of approximately $64,000 at separation, entitling the applicant to $32,000.

The court awarded retroactive spousal support as a lump sum of $18,623, finding the applicant entitled to support on both compensatory and needs bases, given her role as primary caregiver, limited English proficiency at separation, and the respondent's failure to pay consistent child support.

This is a costs endorsement following a judgment in which the court found Yahya Dikeni Hashiru liable for unjust enrichment in the amount of $713,089 and Spotless Consultancy Inc. liable for fraud in the amount of $2,726,050 plus punitive damages of $250,000.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs of $100,000 against both defendants.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $100,000 against Spotless based on the fraud finding, but awarded only $60,000 against Hashiru on a lesser scale given that the successful claim was for unjust enrichment rather than fraud.

The court also ordered a post-judgment Mareva injunction in aid of execution for 9 months and granted tracing orders regarding two Ghanaian entities.

The defendants, two children's aid societies, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's action without leave to amend pursuant to Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff commenced the action in January 2025 against the defendants over their involvement in seeking child protection orders affecting the plaintiff's child in 2017.

The action alleged negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, misfeasance in public office, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of Charter rights.

The court found the action constituted an improper collateral attack on existing court orders and that the specific causes of action were untenable in law.

The action was struck out without leave to amend, and costs of $2,500 per defendant were awarded.

A second mortgagee sought leave to issue a Writ of Possession and an order that the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 does not apply to the mortgaged property pursuant to section 5(i) of that Act.

The mortgaged property had multiple occupants sharing kitchen and bathroom facilities.

The court found that the evidence was insufficient to determine whether section 5(i) applied and that notice must be given to the owner and tenants before such a determination could be made, as it would affect their rights under the RTA.

The motion was adjourned pending service on the owner and tenants and further submissions.

The defendants moved for default judgment on their counterclaim for two secured loans totaling approximately $45 million in principal plus interest and protective disbursements.

The plaintiffs' statement of claim and defence to counterclaim had been struck out for failure to pay a costs award.

The court granted judgment on the two loans but reduced the judgment by disallowing $6,105,693.66 in unproven protective disbursements claimed under the second loan.

The court stayed enforcement of the judgment pending the Divisional Court's decision on the plaintiffs' motions for leave to appeal.

An insurer sought default judgment against an uninsured defendant following settlement with the plaintiff.

The insurer had taken an assignment of the plaintiff's action and settled for $105,000.

The court considered whether the settlement amount could be used as a proxy for damages in the absence of detailed evidence regarding the plaintiff's injuries and losses.

The court found insufficient evidence to establish the reasonableness of the settlement and declined to grant judgment, allowing the insurer 21 days to file additional evidence.

Following the dismissal of both the appellant's appeal and the respondent's cross-motion for leave to appeal costs, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The self-represented respondent sought approximately $40,000 in costs, claiming lost remuneration as a contractor.

The appellant argued for no costs due to divided success.

The Court of Appeal ordered no costs of the appeal, finding that success was divided and noting the additional time incurred due to the respondent's late filing of the cross-motion.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of a summary judgment motion brought by the plaintiffs in a Simplified Procedure action.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $82,805, or alternatively on a partial indemnity basis of $53,826.

The plaintiffs opposed the costs award and argued the defendants' counsel engaged in unethical conduct.

The court found the plaintiffs acted unreasonably in bringing the motion given numerous factual disputes and the limitations of the Simplified Procedure rule.

However, the court reduced the costs award to $35,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, finding the requested amounts were disproportionate to the claim value and inconsistent with Simplified Procedure principles.

A family law trial involving two self-represented litigants concerning parenting arrangements, decision-making responsibility, and child support for their child.

The applicant father sought increased parenting time and sole decision-making responsibility, alleging parental alienation by the respondent mother.

The respondent mother opposed the application and sought suspension of parenting time, alleging the father's violence and erratic behaviour.

The parties had previously separated in 2018 and entered into a separation agreement in 2020 providing for joint decision-making and a four-week rotation parenting schedule.

A significant incident involving physical violence occurred in July 2024 in the child's presence, resulting in criminal charges against the father (later withdrawn in exchange for a peace bond).

The court found that while both parents engaged in alienating behaviour, the father's absence from the child's life since September 2024 and the child's anxiety disorder precluded a shared parenting schedule at this time.

The court ordered sole decision-making responsibility to the mother with incremental reintroduction of parenting time facilitated by the paternal uncle, reconciliation counselling, and ongoing child support obligations.