Self-represented

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed a 14B motion brought by Laura Elizabeth Clark seeking urgent orders for primary residence of the child with police enforcement in Fergus, Ontario.

The motion was short served and not on consent, and the court emphasized the importance of jurisdictional propriety, noting an existing temporary order from Thunder Bay.

The court held that only the original court can transfer jurisdiction under section 66 of the Children's Law Reform Act and that the issue of jurisdiction should be addressed in Thunder Bay where the initial application was made.

The decision highlights procedural requirements for urgent motions and the necessity to respect existing court orders and jurisdictional boundaries in family law disputes.

The court considered motions by the respondent, Mohammad Rahbar, to have the appellant, Nasya Peters, declared a vexatious litigant and for security for costs in relation to her appeal.

The court found that Ms. Peters had engaged in persistent, vexatious, and abusive litigation conduct, both in court and through communications with the respondent and his counsel.

The court declared Ms. Peters a vexatious litigant and ordered her to pay $10,000 into court as security for costs before she could continue her appeal.

The City of Waterloo sought and was granted interlocutory statutory and quia timet injunctions to restrain "persons unknown" from violating the City's Nuisance Party By-law in connection with anticipated unsanctioned St. Patrick’s Day street parties.

The court found a clear breach of the by-law, significant unrecoverable public costs, and a high probability of irreparable harm.

The decision reviews the legal standards for statutory and quia timet injunctions, the public interest in enforcement, and the limited impact on Charter rights.

The plaintiff, Gabriela Lucuta, sought to set aside a 2019 consent order dismissing her medical malpractice action against Dr. David Stevens, Dr. Peter Stevenson, and Grand River Hospital, arguing that her agreement to settle was obtained under duress and unconscionability.

The court found no evidence of threats, coercion, or improvident bargain, and held that the settlement was fairly negotiated.

The motion was dismissed.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered charges against Brian Cobb for breaching a release order by attending a place frequented by the complainant and for uttering a threat via email.

The Court analyzed the meaning of "frequented" in the context of a release order condition, rejecting an overly broad interpretation that would create impractical no-go zones.

The Court found no reasonable risk of contact at the church visit and acquitted Cobb on count 1.

On count 2, the Court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Cobb sent threatening emails, relying on circumstantial evidence linking the emails to Cobb’s prior meeting and statements.

Cobb was convicted of uttering a threat.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s action as frivolous under rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The statement of claim failed to articulate a legally recognized cause of action or material facts supporting a claim against the defendant.

The plaintiff did not provide submissions when invited to do so.

The court found the claim to be devoid of merit and an abuse of process, and dismissed the action without costs.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action under rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The statement of claim failed to articulate a legally recognized cause of action, instead making broad, unsupported, and incoherent allegations.

The plaintiff was given an opportunity to provide submissions but did not do so.

The court found the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the action without costs.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of a firearm, arguing the trial judge erred by not excluding the firearm evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding a s. 8 breach from a facially invalid search warrant.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's application of the Grant framework, noting the breach was deemed the product of sloppiness rather than bad faith.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court deferring to the trial judge's balancing of the factors.

This decision concerns a motion to change child support for an adult disabled child.

The court reviews the parties' history, the child's circumstances, and the relevant legal framework, including the impact of ODSP benefits and the discretion under the Child Support Guidelines for adult children.

The court finds that the father’s proposal of $200 per month is reasonable, given the evidence and the parties’ financial circumstances, and orders repayment of the father’s overpayment at $50 per month.

The self-represented appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the motion judge's decision and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $3,000 to the respondents.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the court issued a costs endorsement.

The successful respondent was awarded its costs of the appeal.

The court ordered the appellant to pay the respondent costs in the all-inclusive amount of $10,000.

This decision concerns a motion to change child support for an adult disabled child.

The court reviews the parties' history, the child's circumstances, and the relevant legal framework, including the impact of ODSP benefits and the discretion under the Child Support Guidelines for adult children.

The court finds that the father’s proposal of $200 per month is reasonable, given the evidence and the parties’ financial circumstances, and orders repayment of the father’s overpayment at $50 per month.

The court summarily dismissed George Georgiou’s application to stay or terminate the execution of a U.S. Final Forfeiture Order (FFO) against funds held in Ontario, finding the application manifestly frivolous.

The court held that it had no jurisdiction to strike down U.S. orders, and that all appeals and challenges to the conviction and forfeiture order had been exhausted in both the U.S. and Canada.

The court also rejected allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and denied a request for further disclosure, finding no evidentiary basis for such claims.

The applicant, Linda Kulchycki, sought to reinstate a 2008 power of attorney and codicil executed by her mother, Mary Kulchycki, and to set aside new powers of attorney and a will executed by Mary in 2020.

Linda alleged conflicts of interest and improper conduct by the respondents, Nancy and Diana Kulchycki, and the lawyer involved in the 2020 documents.

The court found that Linda provided no evidence of incapacity, undue influence, or mismanagement, and that a will challenge is premature while the testator is alive.

The application was dismissed, and costs were awarded against Linda.

The court considered a motion by the respondent father to retroactively decrease his child support obligation and/or rescind all arrears under a 2010 order.

The father, self-represented, argued that his long-term unemployment and health issues constituted a material change in circumstances.

The mother, though served, did not participate.

The court found a material change in circumstances from 2014 onward, but not for 2010–2014 due to lack of evidence.

The court reduced the arrears to $1,500, to be paid at $50/month, and rescinded the remainder, finding the father unable to pay more.

The court applied the Supreme Court’s Colucci framework and relevant statutory provisions.

The court considered a motion by the respondent father to retroactively decrease his child support obligation and/or rescind all arrears under a 2010 order.

The father, self-represented, argued that his long-term unemployment and health issues constituted a material change in circumstances.

The mother, though served, did not participate.

The court found a material change in circumstances from 2014 onward, but not for 2010–2014 due to lack of evidence.

The court reduced the arrears to $1,500, to be paid at $50/month, and rescinded the remainder, finding the father unable to pay more.

The court applied the Supreme Court’s Colucci framework and relevant statutory provisions.

The moving party sought a panel review of a decision dismissing her motion for an extension of time to perfect her motion for leave to appeal from the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court had previously dismissed her appeal of five Licence Appeal Tribunal decisions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, agreeing with the motion judge that despite meeting the first four factors for an extension of time, the justice of the case weighed against granting leave because the proposed appeal lacked merit and general public importance.

The moving party brought a motion to quash an appeal filed in the Court of Appeal, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction.

The responding party acknowledged the error and requested a transfer to the Divisional Court under section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash and declined to order a transfer, finding the proposed appeal lacked obvious merit and that further delay would prejudice the moving party given significant unpaid support and costs arrears.

The appellant appealed her convictions for fraud, uttering forged documents, and breach of probation arising from the purchase of jewellery using fraudulent cheques.

On appeal, she sought to introduce a bank statement as fresh evidence to show she believed she had sufficient funds.

The Court of Appeal declined to admit the fresh evidence, finding it was not genuine based on a sworn statement from a bank investigator.

The Court also rejected the appellant's argument that the trial judge failed to conduct a proper analysis of the circumstantial evidence regarding her mental state, concluding the evidence of her fraudulent intent was overwhelming.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The court considered a motion by self-represented lead plaintiffs in a proposed class action challenging workers’ compensation regimes across Canada.

The plaintiffs sought an order requiring the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) to pay their legal costs, or alternatively, the appointment of amicus curiae or permission for the lead plaintiffs to represent the class.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action for failure to comply with Rule 15, which requires representative parties to be represented by counsel.

The court held that compliance with Rule 15.01(1) is mandatory and that the plaintiffs could not represent the class.

The court declined to appoint amicus curiae or grant an interim advance cost award, finding no exceptional circumstances or evidence of financial need.

The action was stayed pending the plaintiffs’ retention of counsel.