Self-represented

This decision addresses whether a person who was formerly married and divorced (including by foreign divorce) can apply for spousal support under Ontario’s Family Law Act.

The court finds that a divorce, whether foreign or domestic, does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to order spousal support under the Family Law Act.

The decision reviews and departs from prior appellate authority, relying on statutory interpretation, legislative purpose, and recent appellate commentary suggesting the law is “ripe for reconsideration.” The court also addresses the alternative basis for support where the parties resumed cohabitation after the foreign divorce.

This costs endorsement addresses a motion in a proposed class action brought by self-represented plaintiffs seeking, among other things, an order that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) pay their legal costs or that amicus curiae be appointed.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion and ordered the proceedings stayed pending compliance with Rule 15.01(1).

The successful defendants, WSIB and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT), sought costs.

The court reviewed the principles governing costs, found no reason to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event, and ordered Mr. Taylor to pay $2,500 each to WSIB and WSIAT.

This decision arises from an uncontested family law trial following the striking of the respondent father’s pleadings for persistent non-compliance with disclosure and support obligations.

The court imputes income to the father, orders lump sum retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, grants an unequal division of net family property, and authorizes the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court declines to order the sale of corporate property not specifically pleaded.

The decision is notable for its detailed application of adverse inference, imputation of income, and the use of lump sum support to address enforcement concerns where the payor has absconded.

The court considered a motion by msi Spergel Inc., as Administrator, for approval of Danny Angelatos’s consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Canadian Tire Bank opposed, arguing Angelatos was not eligible because his assets exceeded his liabilities and creditors were willing to make arrangements outside the proposal.

The court found Angelatos met the definition of “insolvent person” under the BIA, as he was unable to meet his obligations as they became due, and distinguished the authorities relied on by the Bank.

The court also found the proposal was reasonable and fair to both debtor and creditors, given the family’s circumstances and the creditors’ approval.

The proposal was approved, and costs awarded to the Administrator.

The plaintiff, Matthew Deveaux, sought leave under section 17 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act to proceed with claims against the Crown and other defendants, alleging a cover-up and various statutory breaches following his arrest and prosecution.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to meet the threshold for leave, as there was no reasonable possibility of success in establishing bad faith or malice by the Crown.

The motion was dismissed, and the action declared a nullity as against the Crown.

The defendant, Mark Andre Dajka, moved to dismiss a six-year-old action for delay under rules 24.01(1)(c) and 48.14(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that while the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, there was insufficient evidence of prejudice to the defendant’s ability to have a fair trial.

The motion to dismiss was therefore denied, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The court fixes costs following the dismissal of Rachel Obita’s action against Algonquin College.

The College was wholly successful on a motion to strike, resulting in the dismissal of the action.

The College sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court reviewed the bill of costs, reduced certain amounts for work by articling students and a clerk, and fixed total costs payable by Ms. Obita at $35,515.00, plus $1,000 for the costs of the costs submissions.

The ruling discusses the principles for awarding costs, especially in cases involving self-represented litigants.

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

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

The Ontario Court of Justice convicted Silvano Lochner of criminal harassment under s. 264(1)(b) and (2)(b) of the Criminal Code for repeatedly communicating with police officer Douglas Letsche and his family members over a period spanning from 2022 to 2024.

The communications, primarily emails, related to an incident from 2006 involving the tasering of Lochner’s disabled brother during the execution of a Feeney warrant.

Despite the absence of overt threats, the court found that the volume, persistence, and personal nature of the emails, especially those sent to Letsche’s brother-in-law in March 2024 referencing personal family information, caused Letsche to reasonably fear for his safety and that of his family.

The court emphasized the defendant’s recklessness in continuing communications despite clear indications that contact was unwelcome and the escalation in targeting family members.

The court sentenced William Gallerno for aggravated assault under section 268 of the Criminal Code.

The unprovoked attack caused significant injuries to the victim, Ms. Assenza.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the severity and randomness of the assault and Gallerno’s criminal history, as well as mitigating factors including his Indigenous heritage, addiction, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of one year and six months, after credit for pre-sentence custody, and recommended placement in a treatment facility.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons ban, DNA order, and a non-contact order with the victim and her family.

The appellant, Serena Wall, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) order terminating her tenancy for non-payment of rent and arrears, raising issues of repair, maintenance, and procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence but found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the LTB’s decision, and dismissed the appeal.

The court considered motions under Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to reconsider or amend a judgment following a five-day trial in which both parties were self-represented.

The defendant, Aaron Topple, sought reconsideration on the basis of alleged misapprehension of evidence and contract interpretation, while the plaintiff, Adam Drew, sought recalculation of damages.

The court reviewed the narrow circumstances in which reconsideration is permitted, emphasizing the finality of judgments and the high threshold for reopening a case.

Both motions were dismissed.

The court also addressed costs, awarding the plaintiffs $70,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

This decision addresses a constitutional challenge to section 9(5)(a)(i) of the Cannabis Act, which prohibits discharges for indictable offences of possession of cannabis for the purpose of distribution.

The court upholds the constitutionality of the provision, finding that the infringement on liberty is not grossly disproportionate or overbroad, does not impose a grossly disproportionate sentence, and does not create a distinction based on race in its impact.

The court sentences the accused, Rene Smith, to a fine of $7,500 and makes several ancillary orders.

The court considered motions under Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to reconsider or amend a judgment following a five-day trial in which both parties were self-represented.

The defendant, Aaron Topple, sought reconsideration on the basis of alleged misapprehension of evidence and contract interpretation, while the plaintiff, Adam Drew, sought recalculation of damages.

The court reviewed the narrow circumstances in which reconsideration is permitted, emphasizing the finality of judgments and the high threshold for reopening a case.

Both motions were dismissed.

The court also addressed costs, awarding the plaintiffs $70,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

This decision addresses a high-conflict family law matter involving parenting time, decision-making authority, and financial issues following the separation of S.M. (applicant) and N.E. (respondent).

The court reviews the respondent's repeated non-compliance with court orders, her failure to participate in proceedings, and the resulting orders for an undefended trial on financial issues.

The court ultimately denies the respondent's motion to set aside the undefended trial, grants the applicant sole decision-making authority for the child, and sets out detailed orders regarding child support, the matrimonial home, and costs.

The Ontario Court of Justice found Joris Salverda guilty of operating a milk plant without a licence contrary to s. 15(1) of the Milk Act and breaching a probation order under s. 75 of the Provincial Offences Act.

The Defendant challenged the applicability of the Milk Act to his private raw milk operation via a Notice of Constitutional Question, arguing that the Act did not apply to his private dealings with customers who assumed risks.

The Court dismissed the constitutional challenge, relying heavily on the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R v. Schmidt, which held that the Milk Act applies to private operations and that there is no constitutional right to sell unpasteurized milk products.

The Court found no violation of s. 7 Charter rights and confirmed the Defendant's guilt on both charges.

The decision addresses a motion by A.C. to enforce a prior order regarding parenting time and family systems therapy for the parties' child, D.C., following a history of domestic violence and high-conflict litigation.

The court finds that the respondent, K.C., has failed to comply with orders regarding both parenting time and therapy, and has unilaterally enrolled D.C. in individual counselling contrary to the court's direction for family systems therapy.

The court orders the resumption of parenting time, directs the parties to engage in family systems therapy, and retains jurisdiction to supervise compliance.