Sophia Irish Dales

The respondent brought a motion for interim child and spousal support following the breakdown of a 15-year marriage.

The parties enjoyed an exceptionally high standard of living, with family wealth including a $200 million business fund and multiple luxury properties.

The applicant argued the motion was premature due to an impending $90 million equalization payment and contested the respondent's proposed budget as inflated.

The court found the motion was not premature and the respondent was entitled to support.

Given the applicant's income far exceeded the $350,000 ceiling, the court departed from a strict application of the guidelines, awarding $200,000 per month in interim spousal support and $75,000 per month in interim child support, plus $27,000 monthly for nannies.

Claims for retroactive support were deferred to trial.

The respondent brought a motion for interim child and spousal support.

The parties were separated but continued to reside in the matrimonial home with their children.

The applicant was paying all carrying costs for the home, joint debts, and children's expenses.

The court dismissed the motion as premature, finding that interim support is generally not payable when the payor spouse covers all carrying costs while the parties reside together under the same roof.

The respondent was granted liberty to renew the motion once the matrimonial home is sold.

The applicant father brought a Hague Convention application for the return of the 12-year-old child to the Bahamas.

The respondent mother conceded the removal was wrongful but opposed the return based on exceptions under Articles 13(b), 13(2), and 20, alleging a history of domestic violence and a lack of state protection in the Bahamas.

During the proceedings, the mother and child were granted refugee status in Canada, creating a rebuttable presumption of risk.

The court found the father successfully rebutted the presumption, noting the Bahamas has adequate laws and agencies to protect victims of domestic violence.

The court also declined to exercise its discretion to refuse return based on the child's objections, finding the child had been influenced by the mother.

The application was granted and the child was ordered returned to the Bahamas.

The defendants, a union and its representatives, brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action initiated by the plaintiffs, a hotel and its parent company.

The defamation claim arose from a press release issued by the defendants alleging the hotel required employees to remove union Pride pins, implying a lack of support for the LGBTQ+ community.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiffs' defamation claim had substantial merit and no valid defences (justification, qualified privilege, fair/reasonable comment), particularly due to evidence of malice and the untruthful implication in the press release.

The court concluded that the public interest in allowing the defamation action to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression, and awarded partial indemnity costs of $75,000 to the plaintiffs.

Following the dismissal of Hockey Canada's motion to withdraw an affidavit and the vacating of its summary judgment motion, the plaintiff sought costs.

The plaintiff claimed partial indemnity costs for the motion and full indemnity for costs thrown away, totaling over $70,000.

The court found the plaintiff's claimed hours excessive due to duplication of work by multiple timekeepers and determined that some work done for the summary judgment motion could be repurposed for trial.

The court fixed the costs payable by Hockey Canada to the plaintiff at $25,000 all-inclusive.

This decision addresses two motions: one by AIG Insurance Company of Canada for summary judgment against the plaintiff, Neil Doef, regarding a paralysis benefit claim, and another by Hockey Canada seeking leave to withdraw an affidavit and replace it.

The court dismissed AIG's summary judgment motion due to an unjustifiable 42-month delay in bringing it, finding it contrary to the principles of timely access to justice.

Hockey Canada's motion for leave to withdraw the affidavit was also dismissed, as granting it would have prejudiced the plaintiff by denying him the opportunity to cross-examine the affiants before the summary judgment motion, which was subsequently vacated.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against the Law Society of Ontario and several individuals.

Before a summary hearing was scheduled, the applicant requested early document production, which the Tribunal's Registrar deferred as premature.

The applicant sought judicial review of this interim decision.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the application was manifestly premature as the Tribunal had not made a final decision on document production and no exceptional circumstances warranted early court intervention.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision denying medical benefits and post-104 week income replacement benefits.

The applicant introduced fresh evidence in the form of a psychiatric assessment by the respondent's own expert, which causally linked the applicant's severe alcohol use disorder and depression to the accident.

The Tribunal admitted the fresh evidence and found that the applicant sustained psychological impairments as a result of the accident.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a complete inability to perform any occupation and awarded post-104 week income replacement benefits, as well as medical benefits for a psychological assessment and occupational therapy.

The request for personal training services was dismissed.

The applicant sought dispute resolution at the Licence Appeal Tribunal after being denied post-104 week income replacement benefits, medical benefits, and costs of examinations following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that while the applicant suffered physical impairments from the accident, he did not suffer a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's vocational evidence, finding the applicant could work as a delivery driver.

The adjudicator also found the applicant's psychological issues were caused by subsequent life stressors, not the accident.

The claims for medical benefits and assessments were dismissed as not reasonable or necessary.

The applicant, a taxi driver, was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated his income replacement benefits (IRBs) and denied certain medical and assessment treatment plans.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain syndrome and psychological impairments, entitling him to both pre-104-week and post-104-week IRBs.

The disputed medical and assessment plans were denied for lack of evidence of reasonableness and necessity at the time of submission.

The arbitrator awarded a maximum 50% special award against the insurer, finding it unreasonably withheld benefits by ignoring mounting medical evidence of the applicant's psychological and cognitive impairments and relying solely on outdated physical assessments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for chiropractic services, a gym membership, assistive devices, and psychological and neuropsychological assessments.

The insurer denied the treatment plans based on insurer's examinations finding no objective evidence of impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal partially granted the application, allowing the chiropractic services for pain relief, the gym membership to improve mobility, and the psychological assessment due to diagnosed psychological conditions.

The claims for assistive devices and a neuropsychological assessment were denied for lack of supporting medical evidence.