Self-represented

This decision concerns the sale of a jointly owned residential property following the breakdown of a common law relationship.

The applicant, Cindy Lee Ann Cayen, sought urgent terms for the sale of the home, including an order requiring the respondent, Chad Parish, to vacate the property due to his ongoing non-compliance with previous court orders for sale.

The court found that the respondent had not appealed the orders, had obstructed the sale, and had not provided evidence of a viable plan to purchase the applicant’s interest.

The court ordered the respondent to vacate the property within 21 days and granted the applicant leave to obtain a writ of possession if necessary.

The distribution of sale proceeds was reserved.

The applicants, Raymond Laxton and his son Gregory Elliott Laxton, sought appointment as joint guardians of property and personal care for Josephine Margaret Laxton.

The court had previously appointed them as joint guardians of personal care and required further evidence regarding guardianship of property.

After reviewing updated evidence, including a capacity assessment and financial information, the court found Josephine incapable of managing property and appointed Raymond and Gregory as joint guardians of property.

The court dispensed with the requirement to post security, citing the prohibitive cost and the family’s close, trusting relationships.

The guardians were ordered to pass their accounts within the time frame recommended by the Public Guardian and Trustee.

Costs were awarded only to the PGT.

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.

The Ontario Court of Justice granted a motion to strike the respondent’s pleadings in a family law matter involving decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and child support for a 16-year-old child.

The respondent failed to comply with court orders to provide financial documents and did not comply with the Family Law Rules regarding settlement and trial management conferences.

The court found the respondent’s non-compliance justified striking pleadings to allow the matter to proceed uncontested, emphasizing the need for finality and the applicant’s right to a just resolution.

The court declined to permit limited participation by the respondent after striking pleadings due to his history of non-compliance and absence.

The court considered a motion for judgment based on the defendants’ failure to respond to requests to admit under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff sought judgment for monies allegedly owing for asbestos removal services.

The court allowed the defendants a tightly timetabled opportunity to move to withdraw their deemed admissions, citing fairness and the lack of non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff.

The court also addressed the issue of corporate representation, refusing further leave for the corporate defendant to be represented by a non-lawyer.

This decision resolves a high-conflict family law dispute involving divorce, parenting, child support, spousal support, and property division.

The court grants the father sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the child, C.M.M., with the mother’s parenting time to be supervised due to longstanding concerns about her mental health and repeated unsubstantiated abuse allegations.

The mother is ordered to undergo psychiatric and psychological assessments, and her parenting time may be reviewed after December 1, 2026.

The court orders the mother to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, an equalization payment, and reimbursement for funds received from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The father is found to have fully satisfied his spousal support obligations.

The decision includes detailed analysis of the parties’ credibility, financial circumstances, and the best interests of the child.

The applicant, William Malamas, sought leave to commence an application for judicial review of decisions by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Malamas had not satisfied the requirements under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act for leave to proceed as a vexatious litigant.

The court held that the proposed proceeding was an abuse of process and lacked reasonable grounds, as it was intrinsically linked to prior litigation that led to the vexatious litigant order.

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.

The defendant Royal Bank of Canada filed a requisition under rule 2.1.01(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of the action.

The court determined under rule 2.1.01(6) that it may be appropriate to make an order dismissing or staying the action, and directed the registrar to give notice to the parties in Form 2.1B.

The endorsement outlines the procedures and timelines for written submissions by the parties in response to the notice, as set out in rules 2.1.01(7) through (10).

The court fixes costs following a motion and cross-motion regarding parenting time and counseling for the parties' child, D.C. The Applicant (father) was successful in most of his requested relief, and the Respondent (mother) was found to have acted in bad faith by withholding information, flouting court orders, and seeking to reduce the Applicant's parenting time.

The court orders the Respondent to pay $30,000 in costs to the Applicant, to be paid within twelve months, and rejects arguments for reduction based on the Respondent's financial or personal circumstances.

This decision addresses a child protection application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, involving two young children found to be in need of protection due to risks of physical harm and exposure to family violence.

The court carefully analyzed the mental health challenges of the mother, the domestic violence between the parents, and the suitability of placement with the maternal aunt.

The court found the mother lacked insight and compliance with treatment, and the father had a history of family violence.

The children were placed in the care of the maternal aunt with supervision by the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, and access orders were made for the parents with conditions.

The judgment also provides a detailed roadmap for the parents to address the protection concerns and work towards reunification.

The court fixes costs following an undefended trial in a family law matter where the respondent repeatedly ignored court orders and failed to participate in the proceedings.

The applicant sought full recovery of costs due to the respondent's bad faith conduct.

The court found that the respondent's actions—deliberately ignoring orders and withholding parenting time to leverage financial issues—constituted bad faith.

Costs were fixed at $45,000, to be paid from the respondent’s share of the matrimonial home.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered an appeal by Peter Tak Ming Lee and Mun Chung Leung from a judgment granting York Region Standard Condominium Corporation No. 972 possession of their unit and leave to issue a writ of possession, unless the appellants discharged a lien.

The appeal raised issues of trial judge bias, disregard of evidence, and the validity and calculation of the lien.

The court rejected the bias and evidentiary grounds, but found a calculation error in the lien amount, requiring a reduction.

The appeal was allowed in part, with no order as to costs.

This decision concerns an uncontested family law trial in which the applicant, Tirhas Yowhannes, sought sole decision-making responsibility for her two children, the right to travel and obtain government-issued documentation for them without the respondent’s consent, child support based on imputed income, and a divorce.

The court granted all relief sought, finding it in the children’s best interests given the respondent’s absence from their lives and failure to provide support or disclosure.

The court also ordered retroactive and ongoing child support based on minimum wage.

The court considered the admissibility of a videorecorded statement made by the accused, Jeremy Folk, to police in a manslaughter case.

The statement was challenged on the grounds of voluntariness and alleged breaches of the right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that while the statement was voluntary, the police failed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the accused to consult with counsel of choice before the interview.

As a result, the statement was excluded from evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court allowed the appeal of Arlene Hastick from a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming the renewal of her Community Treatment Order (CTO) under the Mental Health Act.

The court found that the Board denied Ms. Hastick procedural fairness by repeatedly preventing her from asking relevant questions of her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Banik, and by relying on evidence about her 2016 hospitalization while refusing to allow her to challenge or clarify that evidence.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted Board.

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.