14 total
Primary residence granted to mother pending trial due to father's manipulative behaviour and children's need for stability.
The applicant mother sought primary residence of the two children pending trial, while the respondent father sought an equal parenting schedule.
The court found the father had engaged in controlling and manipulative behaviour, including pressuring the children regarding equal time and unilaterally depleting home equity.
The court determined it was in the children's best interests to have primary residence with the mother to provide stability, with the father having alternate weekend parenting time.
The court also ordered joint decision-making with the mother having final say in the event of an impasse, and appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer.
Full indemnity costs awarded jointly and severally against plaintiff and its principal for egregious deceit.
Following a trial where the plaintiff's construction lien claim was dismissed and the defendants succeeded on their counterclaim, the defendants sought costs.
The court awarded full indemnity costs of $578,793.29 to the defendants due to the egregious and deceitful conduct of the plaintiff's principal, who fabricated documents and lied repeatedly.
The court also ordered the costs to be payable jointly and severally by the plaintiff corporation and its principal personally, finding his conduct amounted to an abuse of process.
Full indemnity costs awarded jointly and severally against plaintiff and its non-party principal for fabricating evidence.
Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's construction lien action and the success of the defendants' counterclaim, the defendants sought full indemnity costs against the plaintiff and its non-party principals.
The court found that the plaintiff's principal engaged in egregious conduct, including fabricating evidence and lying under oath, justifying a full indemnity costs award.
The court ordered costs against the plaintiff and one of its non-party principals jointly and severally, finding his conduct amounted to an abuse of process.
Costs were not awarded against the other non-party principal, as he did not orchestrate the deceit.
Contractor's claim for unpaid construction costs dismissed due to fabricated evidence; homeowners' counterclaim for deficiencies granted.
The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant homeowners for over $523,000 allegedly owing on a custom home construction project, claiming the project evolved without a fixed price.
The defendants argued they had an all-inclusive contract for $540,000, which they had fully paid, and counterclaimed for construction deficiencies.
The court found the plaintiff's principal deliberately lied, fabricated documents, and created false paper trails.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim entirely, ordered the construction lien discharged, and allowed the defendants' counterclaim for $65,112.86 to repair deficiencies.
Application for stay of proceedings due to trial delay dismissed; net delay fell below Jordan ceiling.
The applicant, charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking, applied for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a breach of his section 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.
The total delay from charge to the anticipated end of trial was 53.5 months.
Applying the Jordan framework, the court deducted defence-waived and defence-caused delays, bringing the net delay just under the 30-month presumptive ceiling.
The court found the applicant failed to show the delay was unreasonable or that he took meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings.
Furthermore, as a transitional case, the parties' reasonable reliance on the previous law justified the delay.
The application was dismissed.
Father granted access; income imputed at $54,000 for child support due to intentional under-employment.
The parties separated in 2012 and the applicant mother sought sole custody, child support based on imputed income, and removal of the respondent father from the children's RESP.
The respondent sought access to the children.
The court granted the applicant sole custody and ordered a regular access schedule for the respondent.
The court found the respondent was intentionally under-employed and imputed an annual income of $54,000 for the purpose of calculating child support and section 7 expenses.
The court declined to remove the respondent from the RESP but granted the applicant final decision-making authority over the funds.
The issue of equalization was adjourned to a separate hearing.
Joint custody ordered and international travel restricted where mother historically attempted to alienate father.
The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' child and highly restricted access for the respondent father, as well as permission to travel internationally without his consent.
The father sought joint custody and expanded access.
The court found that the mother had historically attempted to eliminate the father from the child's life and that joint custody was in the child's best interests to foster a cooperative environment.
The court ordered joint custody, primary residence with the mother, a graduated schedule of expanded access for the father, and prohibited international travel without consent due to the mother's strong ties to India.
Summary judgment granted dismissing unjust enrichment claim where plaintiff's evidence of spousal cohabitation was contradicted by his prior sworn testimony.
The plaintiff brought a claim for unjust enrichment against the defendant, seeking $300,000 for renovations he allegedly performed on her properties during a purported 34-year cohabitation.
The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claim.
The court found that the plaintiff's evidence was contradictory, noting he had previously testified under oath at his criminal trial for harassing the defendant that their relationship was casual and he was married to someone else.
The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendant provided overwhelming evidence that she solely owned and financed the properties, and the plaintiff was compensated for minor work with room and board.
The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.
Commercial lease not void ab initio where tenant assumed contractual obligation to ensure zoning compliance.
The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering them to pay rent arrears and accelerated rent under a commercial lease.
The appellants argued the lease was void ab initio because the zoning bylaw did not permit their auto leasing business without a minor variance or operating in conjunction with an auto repair shop.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the lease expressly placed the obligation on the tenant to obtain all necessary permits and comply with zoning laws at its own expense.
The tenant's failure to seek a variance or arrange its business to comply with the bylaw did not render the contract void.
Mistrial quashed and mandamus granted directing Justice of the Peace to admit certificate of offence.
The applicant municipality sought an order of mandamus with certiorari in aid to quash a mistrial declared by a Justice of the Peace in a careless driving trial.
The respondent defendant had appeared by agent and remained outside the courtroom during the prosecution's case, prompting a nonsuit motion on the issue of identity.
The Justice of the Peace refused to allow the prosecution to file a certificate of offence to prove identity alongside viva voce evidence and declared a mistrial.
The Superior Court held that the Justice of the Peace committed a jurisdictional error by declaring a mistrial instead of ruling on the nonsuit motion, and erred in law by refusing to admit the certificate of offence.
The application was allowed, the mistrial quashed, and mandamus issued directing the trial to continue.
Appeal dismissed; trial judge correctly found mutual agreement to cancel booking and cancellation clause was an unenforceable penalty.
The appellant, Versailles Convention Centre, appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its $10,000 claim against the respondent for breach of contract regarding a convention hall booking.
The trial judge found the appellant's witness not credible and accepted the respondent's evidence that the parties mutually agreed to cancel the tentative booking.
The trial judge also found the cancellation clause to be an unenforceable penalty rather than a genuine pre-estimate of damages.
The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility, concluding there was no reversal of the burden of proof and that the damages claimed were arbitrary and excessive.
The appeal was dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; trial judge correctly found mutual cancellation and that the cancellation clause was an unenforceable penalty.
The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its $10,000 breach of contract claim against the respondent for a cancelled convention hall booking.
The trial judge found the parties had mutually agreed to cancel the contract and that the cancellation clause was an unenforceable penalty rather than a genuine pre-estimate of damages.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, credibility findings, or conclusion that the damages claimed were arbitrary and excessive.
Primary residence maintained with mother despite criminal conviction; father ordered to pay support and equalization.
The parties separated in 2008 and initially agreed to joint custody with primary residence to the mother.
In 2010, the mother was charged with criminal negligence causing bodily harm related to her boyfriend's sexual assault of a minor.
The father sought sole custody and permission to move the children out of the jurisdiction.
The court found that the children were not at risk in the mother's care and that it was in their best interests to maintain primary residence with her in their familiar neighbourhood.
The court also ordered the father to pay child support, ongoing and retroactive spousal support, and an equalization payment.
Mother awarded sole custody after harmful grandparent interference was proven.
In a high-conflict custody trial between a mother and paternal grandparents, the court held that the children's best interests required their immediate removal from the grandparents' primary care and placement in the mother's sole custody.
The court found the grandparents had systematically interfered with and undermined the mother-child relationship, fostering irrational fear and unhealthy attachment dynamics in the children.
A jointly retained psychiatrist's opinion recommending removal from the grandparents' influence was accepted, while the respondents' critique evidence was rejected as unhelpful.
The father, who was recovering from addiction and unable to assume parenting responsibility, received supervised access.
The grandparents' claim for child support was reserved.
