Silja S. Seppi

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.

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.

The plaintiff's construction lien action was dismissed, and the defendants' counterclaim was allowed.

This decision addresses the defendants' request for full indemnity costs against the plaintiff corporation and its principals due to egregious conduct during litigation.

The court awarded full indemnity costs against the plaintiff corporation and one principal jointly and severally, finding that principal engaged in fraud, fabricated evidence, and repeatedly lied.

Costs were not awarded against another principal, as their misconduct was not directly related to the litigation.

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.

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.

The Applicant sought an increase in spousal support from $15,000 to $30,000 per month, and retroactive support, arguing a material change in circumstances due to the Respondent's undisclosed significant increase in income and net worth following a business merger and IPO shortly after their separation agreement was finalized.

The Respondent argued against variation, citing the Miglin test and claiming the Applicant had access to income from her father's businesses held in trust.

The court found the Respondent engaged in blameworthy conduct by misrepresenting his financial circumstances and failing to disclose the impending business transaction.

The court also affirmed the existence of a resulting trust over the assets held by the Applicant for her father, meaning no income could be imputed to her from those assets.

The court varied the spousal support to $25,000 per month, retroactive to January 1, 2009, and ordered a lump sum payment.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings pending the provision of state-funded counsel following the denial of legal aid, relying on ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter and seeking a Rowbotham order.

The court accepted that legal aid had been finally refused but held the applicant failed to establish indigence due to incomplete and unreliable financial disclosure, unexplained deposits, asset ownership, and lack of corroborating evidence regarding claimed financial limitations.

The court also concluded that the fraud prosecution, involving cheque transactions and documentary evidence, was not legally complex and could proceed fairly with a self‑represented accused supported by interpretation and trial management by the court.

As the applicant failed to satisfy the prerequisites for a Rowbotham order, the application was dismissed.

The plaintiff environmental remediation company brought a motion for summary judgment seeking payment for emergency spill cleanup services following a large canola oil spill at premises owned by the defendant landlord.

The plaintiff claimed compensation on the basis of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit after the tenant who initially retained the services became insolvent.

The court held that the landlord received a clear benefit from the cleanup because the work mitigated environmental harm and reduced the risk of regulatory orders and liability under the Environmental Protection Act.

The services were requested and authorized by a director of both the tenant and the landlord, and the evidence established that the cleanup prevented significant environmental and property damage.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and concluded that allowing the landlord to retain the benefit without payment would be unjust.

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.

The defendant employer brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim without leave to amend.

The self-represented plaintiff alleged statutory violations including the Criminal Code, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Human Rights Code, the Employment Standards Act, and privacy legislation, seeking substantial damages for termination and alleged harassment.

The court found the pleading failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action, lacked material facts, and consisted largely of a lengthy and incoherent compilation of correspondence.

The alleged statutory breaches did not create independent civil causes of action and the Charter did not apply to private litigation.

The court concluded the pleading was radically defective and incapable of being cured by amendment.

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.

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.

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.

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.

An objecting beneficiary challenged the passing of accounts in an estate administration, alleging improper transactions, mismanagement, and improper interest charges relating to loans advanced to beneficiaries during the deceased’s lifetime.

The court reviewed the estate accounts, supporting affidavits, and submissions and found the objections unsupported by reliable evidence.

The evidence established that the loans to beneficiaries were properly documented and accounted for, and that joint accounts held with one beneficiary were included in the estate in accordance with the deceased’s wishes.

The court concluded that the estate trustees properly managed the estate and that their accounting was sufficient.

The estate trustee’s compensation was approved as fair and reasonable.

Application for a declaration regarding the interpretation of a commercial lease and the tenant’s exercise of an option to renew.

The tenant sought confirmation that he had validly exercised a five‑year renewal option under the lease.

The landlord argued that renewal required prior negotiations, that the tenant had not exercised the option clearly, and that alleged lease defaults disentitled the tenant from renewal.

The court held that the tenant clearly and unequivocally exercised the option and that the lease language requiring negotiations did not constitute a condition precedent.

Alleged defaults were either unsupported or waived by the landlord’s conduct, and therefore did not invalidate the renewal.

Family law trial addressing the date of separation, equalization of net family property, and entitlement to child and spousal support.

The court found the parties separated in February 2009 when the respondent informed the applicant the marriage was over while she was in Tanzania with the children.

Based on incomplete financial disclosure, the court calculated the parties’ net family properties and ordered an equalization payment to the applicant.

The court declined to impute income to the applicant under s.19(1) of the Child Support Guidelines, finding she was not intentionally under‑employed due to caregiving responsibilities and serious health issues.

Spousal support and set‑off child support were ordered, along with payment for extraordinary expenses.

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.

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.

Sentencing following a jury conviction for sexual assault with a weapon, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a child victim aged 12–13.

The offender lured the victim to his home under the pretext of visiting his daughter, exposed her to pornography, used a knife to intimidate her, compelled her to remove her clothing and dance, and sexually touched her.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, citing the vulnerability of the child victim, the use of a weapon, and the offender’s breach of trust as aggravating factors.

The offender also had prior convictions for multiple sexual offences against minors.

Applying the Kienapple principle, the court stayed the sexual interference conviction and imposed custodial sentences on the remaining counts.