Self-represented (no appearance)

Paternal grandparents sought to be added as parties to a child protection proceeding and requested interim access to three children (ages 13, 10, and 4) whose mother was murdered and whose father was charged with first-degree murder.

The children were placed in the care of maternal grandparents.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding that adding the paternal grandparents as parties was not in the children's best interests, would unduly delay proceedings, and was not necessary to determine the issues.

The court also dismissed claims for interim access and documentary disclosure, and refused to admit a transcript from the father's criminal preliminary hearing due to fairness concerns and publication ban restrictions.

The moving party brought a motion to change a 2009 child support order following an uncontested hearing where the responding party did not appear.

The court found that the moving party’s post‑order income from 2010–2013 was significantly lower than the $50,000 income previously imputed, constituting a material change in circumstances justifying variation of arrears.

Child support and s. 7 expense obligations were recalculated retroactively based on the moving party’s actual annual income for each year from 2010 to 2015.

The court accepted a proportional methodology for recalculating historical s. 7 expenses in the absence of evidence from the responding party.

Arrears were fixed at a reduced amount and repayment terms were ordered alongside revised ongoing support.

The Crown appealed an acquittal for impaired driving based on “care or control” of a motor vehicle.

The trial judge found the accused intoxicated in the driver’s seat attempting to start a damaged vehicle but concluded there was no realistic risk of danger because the vehicle was inoperable.

On appeal, the court held the trial judge misapplied the presumption in s. 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

Where the accused occupies the driver’s seat and fails to rebut the presumption by proving no intention to set the vehicle in motion, the elements of care or control are deemed established without additional proof of a realistic risk of danger.

The appeal was allowed and a conviction entered.

The moving party sought default judgment against the defendants for fraudulently obtaining pre‑retirement death benefits and health and welfare benefits by falsely claiming that a union member had died.

The defendants had previously pleaded guilty in criminal proceedings involving the same fraudulent scheme and were noted in default in the civil action.

The court held that the admitted facts established fraud, deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, conversion, and unjust enrichment.

Judgment was granted for the amounts paid out under the benefit plans, together with punitive damages and declarations preventing the defendants from receiving future benefits until the debt was repaid or permitting set‑off against any future entitlements.

The plaintiff employer brought an action alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional interference with economic relations against a former senior executive.

After the defendant’s statement of defence was struck and the defendant was noted in default, the matter proceeded as an uncontested trial where the plaintiff sought liquidated damages including repayment of salary and benefits, costs related to employees hired on the defendant’s recommendation, interest on a business loan obtained based on the defendant’s advice, and unpaid client invoices.

The court found the defendant had engaged in serious misconduct, including falsifying records and impersonating the company’s president, which could justify dismissal for cause.

However, the court held that an employer cannot recover all compensation paid to an employee merely because the employee’s performance was dishonest or deficient.

The plaintiff failed to establish entitlement to the claimed liquidated damages and the action for those damages was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar’s administrative dismissal of a defamation action against an unknown defendant and sought default judgment.

The defendant had posted numerous anonymous defamatory statements about the plaintiff online, continued publishing further statements after the action commenced, refused to identify himself despite a court order, and was noted in default.

The court held that the registrar’s dismissal should be set aside because the plaintiff had received no notice and had not been dilatory.

The court found the statements plainly defamatory and entered judgment in default.

The plaintiff was awarded $100,000 in general damages, $50,000 in aggravated damages, $50,000 in punitive damages, and substantial indemnity costs.

The Crown appealed an acquittal for breach of a probation order under s. 137 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act involving a prohibition on contact with a co‑accused subject to limited exceptions for vocational, educational, employment, or counseling purposes.

The trial judge acquitted after concluding the Crown bore the burden of proving the accused was not within the counseling exception and had failed to investigate whether counseling was occurring.

The appeal court held the trial judge erred in law by treating the exception as an element of the offence despite no evidentiary foundation giving it an “air of reality.” The evidence established the accused and the co‑accused were simply sitting and walking together outside a building, which could not fall within the counseling exception.

The acquittal was set aside and a conviction entered, with the matter remitted for sentencing.