Self-represented

The appellants challenged the trial judge's finding that the parties entered into an oral partnership agreement to deliver milk through a numbered company, and disputed the resulting damages award under the OBCA oppression remedy, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the partnership or credibility assessments, and upheld the prejudgment interest calculation as a reasonable exercise of discretion under s. 130(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The allegation of judicial bias was dismissed for failing to meet the high threshold to displace the presumption of impartiality.

The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, except that further submissions were required on whether income taxes should have been deducted from certain amounts included in the damages calculation.

The plaintiff collections agency, as assignee of an alleged construction-material debt, moved for summary judgment for breach of contract and to set aside a property transfer as a fraudulent conveyance.

The court held there were genuine issues requiring a trial, including whether any post-September 2023 supply contract existed, whether the defendants ordered or received the disputed materials, and whether one defendant was party to any such agreement.

The evidentiary record raised significant credibility disputes, including unsigned delivery documentation, disputed invoices, and contested notice evidence, making fair adjudication on a paper record inappropriate under Rule 20.04 principles.

On the fraudulent conveyance claim under s. 2 of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, the court found the necessary intent findings could not be made summarily and that alleged badges of fraud required trial-level fact-finding.

The summary judgment motion was dismissed.

Le requérant a demandé des ordonnances de conformité en vertu de l’article 134 de la Loi de 1998 sur les condominiums concernant des locations à court terme, une caméra installée sans autorisation sur un élément commun, et des comportements allégués comme harcelants et nuisibles à la jouissance paisible.

Le tribunal a conclu à des violations répétées des règles et du règlement sur les locations à court terme, ainsi qu’à une contravention de l’article 98 pour la caméra.

Le tribunal a aussi conclu à des comportements harcelants et à des actes nuisant au confort et à la jouissance paisible des autres copropriétaires.

Une ordonnance a été signée avec modifications et des dépens partiels de 18 000 $ ont été accordés au requérant.

In a bifurcated family property trial involving an unmarried couple, the court addressed claims concerning a home on First Nation reserve land and allegations of unjust enrichment.

The responding party sought a proprietary interest and partition and sale under First Nation matrimonial property law and, alternatively, provincial partition legislation.

The court held that a non-band member could not be granted a beneficial interest in reserve land and rejected partition and sale as an available remedy on the facts and legal framework.

The court nevertheless found unjust enrichment and awarded a monetary remedy calibrated to contributions and the benefit received through rent-free occupation.

The applicant was ordered to pay damages with pre-judgment interest, and costs were left for further submissions if not agreed.

The applicant condominium corporation sought declarations that the respondent unit owners breached ss. 19, 98, 117, and 119 of the Condominium Act, 1998, orders requiring the respondents to permit inspection of an in-unit washer and dryer installation, to enter into an indemnity agreement for an unauthorized video doorbell on a common element, and to cease harassing building staff and other occupants.

The court found the respondents breached s. 98 by refusing to sign an indemnity agreement for the video doorbell and s. 19 by refusing to permit entry for inspection.

The harassment allegations were not resolved on the affidavit evidence and the balance of the application was converted to an action requiring viva voce evidence.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a full indemnity basis, fixed at $10,000 for the resolved matters.

The moving party sought release from a terminated agreement of purchase and sale and relief from forfeiture of a 15% condominium deposit after failing to close due to significant post-contract mental health and financial deterioration.

The court held rescission was unavailable because the agreement was entered without duress, fraud, mistake, or other inequitable formation circumstances, and the responding party had no knowledge of disability at contract formation.

Applying s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act and Redstone, the court found the deposit was not disproportionate to anticipated loss and that unconscionability was not established on the evidentiary record.

The court emphasized arm’s-length bargaining, purchaser sophistication, good-faith conduct by the seller, and the fundamental nature of the breach.

The application was dismissed, with reduced partial indemnity costs fixed at $5,000 all-inclusive.

In this family costs decision following trial, the court held the applicant was successful in all significant respects and entitled to costs under Family Law Rule 24(3).

The court found the applicant beat settlement offers dated October 21, 2025 and December 5, 2025, and assessed comparability on an overall basis rather than term-by-term precision.

Relying on subrules 24(12) and 24(14), the court emphasized the respondent’s unreasonable litigation conduct, including delay, non-compliance, and positions that increased trial complexity and expense.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs up to the first offer and full recovery costs thereafter, including expert-related amounts, for a total all-inclusive award of $179,407 payable within 30 days.

Following a family law trial, the court resolved disputes over separation date, equalization, child support, section 7 expenses, imputation of income, and disposition of the matrimonial home.

The court found the separation date was June 15, 2018, accepted an imputed annual income of $44,500 for support purposes, and ordered retroactive base support and section 7 contributions.

In light of disclosure failures and non-compliance, the court accepted the moving party’s net family property calculations and ordered an equalization payment.

The court vested title to the matrimonial home in the moving party, granted sole carriage and exclusive possession pending sale, and declared a registered family mortgage null and void.

Pre-judgment interest was denied.

The moving party sought decision-making and parenting orders in a high-conflict family law proceeding involving a child requiring ongoing services.

Applying the best-interests framework under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found both parents had engaged in self-help conduct, but made adverse reliability findings against the moving party and accepted the responding party’s evidence on historical primary residence.

The court held that a joint regime was unworkable and that sole decision-making should rest with the responding party to secure timely educational, medical, and therapeutic decisions.

A defined parenting schedule, holiday regime, information-sharing rights, and parenting-app communication terms were ordered to reduce conflict and promote stability.

The moving party sought decision-making and parenting orders in a high-conflict family law proceeding involving a child requiring ongoing services.

Applying the best-interests framework under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found both parents had engaged in self-help conduct, but made adverse reliability findings against the moving party and accepted the responding party’s evidence on historical primary residence.

The court held that a joint regime was unworkable and that sole decision-making should rest with the responding party to secure timely educational, medical, and therapeutic decisions.

A defined parenting schedule, holiday regime, information-sharing rights, and parenting-app communication terms were ordered to reduce conflict and promote stability.

The applicant sought relief in a motion before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Motion dismissed.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The applicant sought relief in a motion before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Motion granted.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The accused was charged with four counts of acting as a motor vehicle dealer without registration contrary to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act and two counts of making false, misleading or deceptive representations contrary to the Consumer Protection Act.

The accused purchased and resold four vehicles over a period of approximately five months, typically listing them for sale within days of acquisition at substantial markups.

The accused argued the section 5 personal use exemption applied.

The court found the exemption inapplicable as the pattern of trading demonstrated a profit motive rather than legitimate personal use, considering the speed of resale, profit margins, and volume of trades.

The accused was found guilty on five counts and acquitted on one count at the invitation of the prosecution.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Motion dismissed.

The applicant sought relief in a motion before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Motion dismissed.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer sought dismissal of a civil claim under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The self-represented plaintiff had commenced a second action alleging negligence by the OCL arising from a prior family law proceeding, after a substantially identical claim had already been dismissed under the same rule.

The court found the negligence claim untenable because the OCL owed no duty of care to the plaintiff and, even if it did, the Divisional Court had already found no breach of the standard of care.

The claim was dismissed as an abuse of process and as duplicative of matters previously decided.