Steven Myles Bookman

The plaintiff, CLC Tree Services Ltd., brought a motion to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery, alleging that the City of London granted preferential treatment in awarding arboricultural and vegetation management contracts to Davey Tree Expert Co. of Canada, Limited to the exclusion of CLC.

The defendant, the City of London, brought a cross-motion seeking answers to undertakings and refusals from CLC's examination, arguing that CLC's allegations were based on rumours and unnamed sources and that the scope of the claim needed to be defined.

The court addressed numerous undertakings and refusals, emphasizing the importance of parties working collaboratively to resolve discovery disputes and the broad scope of oral discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted many of CLC's requests for disclosure while also ordering CLC to provide greater particularity regarding its damages claims and the factual basis for its allegations.

The court granted an application under the Hague Convention for the return of a child wrongfully removed from Michigan to Ontario by her mother.

The judge found that Michigan was the child’s habitual residence immediately prior to removal, rejecting the argument that the child’s ties to her primary caregiver in Ontario were determinative.

The court also found that the mother had not established a grave risk of harm or intolerable situation if the child were returned, and ordered the child’s return to Michigan with undertakings to protect the mother and child’s interests pending further proceedings in Michigan.

This decision concerns an appeal from a family arbitration award regarding the proper method for valuing a foreign property (in Egypt) for equalization purposes under Ontario’s Family Law Act.

The applicant (wife) argued for alternative exchange rate methodologies to avoid a "phantom loss" due to currency devaluation, while the respondent (husband) and the arbitrator applied the statutory approach of using the exchange rates at the date of marriage and the valuation date.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the arbitrator’s approach correct and consistent with the legislative scheme, and awarded costs to the respondent.

The applicant sought to register a default judgment of $448,459.15 USD obtained in the Superior Court of California against the respondent.

The respondent did not file a Notice of Appearance or defend the application.

The court found a real and substantial connection between the dispute and California, as the respondent had solicited business and entered into agreements there.

Finding no defences of fraud, public policy, or lack of natural justice applicable, the court granted the order to enforce the foreign judgment.

The appellant, a disbarred lawyer, appealed the dismissal of his application for a certificate of appointment as estate trustee with a will.

The application judge had refused the appointment due to concerns about the appellant's potential unlicensed practice of law, given his professional history and involvement in the will's preparation and subsequent rapid steps to secure his appointment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, confirming the Superior Court's inherent jurisdiction to refuse an estate trustee appointment, even if unopposed, to uphold public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Court also dismissed a motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding it could have been adduced earlier.

This motion concerned the interpretation and enforcement of a Separation Agreement, specifically its security provisions for spousal support, following the Respondent's terminal cancer diagnosis and alleged asset depletion.

The Applicant sought to prevent the Respondent from undermining her beneficial interest in his estate by transferring assets to their son.

The court found the Respondent breached the agreement by terminating a family trust and adding their son as a joint account holder to other accounts with the improper purpose of removing assets from the estate.

Applying principles of contractual interpretation and good faith, the court ordered damages for the trust breach as a first charge on the estate and enjoined the Respondent from further improperly depleting the large investment account or transferring assets to their son by survivorship or gift, while allowing for legitimate personal and medical expenses.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing her motion for net arrears of child and spousal support and section 7 expenses, and granting the respondent's cross-motion to terminate all support.

The Court of Appeal emphasized the high degree of deference owed to family support decisions.

Finding no material error, serious misapprehension of evidence, or error of law in the motion judge's detailed analysis, the court dismissed the appeal.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his Hague Convention application seeking the return of his 3.5-year-old daughter from Toronto to Florida, arguing the application judge erred in determining the child's habitual residence.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's finding that the child's habitual residence was Toronto, concluding there was no wrongful removal or retention, regardless of the specific date chosen for determination.

The court also dismissed the father's arguments regarding the application judge's alleged overemphasis on parental intention, inadequate reasons, and allowing the mother to participate without filing an Answer.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The respondent in a family law proceeding requested a transcript of select portions of prior Zoom hearings.

The Recording Management Office had no official recording and asked the motions judge if his personal recording could be released.

The judge declined the request, noting that under the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction, digital recordings of family motions are not available unless a judge orders otherwise.

The judge found no reason to exercise his discretion to release the recording, as the issue in question had already been addressed through written submissions and a subsequent hearing.

The applicant mother brought a motion under the Hague Convention seeking the return of the parties' two children to Florida, alleging the respondent father wrongfully removed them to Toronto.

The parties had signed a separation agreement permitting a temporary relocation to Florida, conditional on the mother obtaining an E2 visa and U.S. health insurance by a six-month review date.

The mother failed to meet these conditions.

The court applied the hybrid approach to habitual residence and found the children remained habitually resident in Ontario.

The father's return of the children to Toronto was not wrongful as it accorded with the conditional terms of the separation agreement.

The application was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff under Rule 56.01(1)(d).

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion seeking a sealing order for an affidavit and to exclude certain evidence allegedly obtained improperly by the defendants.

The court dismissed the cross-motion for a sealing order, finding the plaintiff did not meet the Sherman Estate test.

On the security for costs motion, the court found the defendants met their initial onus of showing good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient assets.

The plaintiff was ordered to post security for costs in the amount of $105,000 on a pay-as-you-go basis.

Following a decision dismissing the applicant's motion and granting the respondent's cross-motion, a dispute arose regarding the timeline for final submissions and the immediate release of trust funds.

The court held a case conference and ordered the immediate termination of child support, which had been found to have ended in 2018, and the immediate release of funds held in trust to the respondent.

The deadline for final submissions on the remaining issues was extended.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found the affidavit evidence from both parties to be highly contradictory on fundamental issues, including the children's primary residence, payment of expenses, and the parties' respective roles in the family business.

Given the irreconcilable evidence, the need for credibility findings, and an imminent trial scheduled in three months, the court dismissed the motion and reserved costs to the trial judge.

This motion concerned the interpretation of "spouse" under section 29 of the Family Law Act, specifically the phrase "are the parents of a child." The applicant, Mr. Elkind, sought a declaration that he and the respondent, Ms. Addeo, were not spouses, arguing their child's death before separation negated spousal status.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the phrase means two people who have a child together while cohabiting in a relationship of some permanence are spouses, regardless of whether the child is alive at the date of separation.

The decision emphasized that economic consequences and mutual commitment arising from the decision to have a child persist even if the child does not survive.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the action from the City of Toronto to the City of London.

The plaintiff's action alleged a conspiracy in awarding contracts for forestry operations in the City of London, seeking $31 million in damages.

The court applied the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that all enumerated factors favoured the transfer, as the events, damages, subject-matter, and witnesses were all located in London.

The motion was granted and the action was ordered transferred.

The respondent mother brought a motion for the child to primarily reside with her and for the applicant father's parenting time to be conditional on drug and alcohol testing.

The father requested a shared parenting schedule and sole decision-making, denying any substance abuse issues.

The court found the father's denial of substance abuse issues not credible and noted his recent withholding of the child.

The court ordered that the child primarily reside with the mother, with the father's parenting time conditional on negative drug and alcohol tests, and granted the mother final decision-making authority.

The applicant father brought an emergency motion to reinstate his regular access schedule to his daughter.

The respondent mother had withheld access after the father was arrested for a domestic incident involving his current partner, although the charges were subsequently dropped.

The mother proposed suspending overnight access pending input from the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court found no viable reason to permit unsupervised daytime access while denying overnight access, and ordered the father's parenting time reinstated forthwith.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking interim sole custody, a change of school, and a s. 30 assessment for the parties' four-year-old child.

The applicant mother opposed the relief and sought a restraining order against the father.

The court ordered temporary joint decision-making and expanded the father's parenting time to six nights out of fourteen, finding both parents capable despite their high conflict and mutual allegations.

The court dismissed the father's requests to change the child's school and for a s. 30 assessment, noting the assessment would cause unnecessary delay and was not required.

The mother's request for a restraining order was also dismissed for lack of objective evidence supporting a reasonable fear for her safety.

No costs were awarded.

The appellant mother appealed the dismissal of her Hague Convention application seeking the return of her child to France.

The mother had taken the child to France in October 2018, and the respondent father brought the child back to Ontario in February 2019.

The application judge found that the child's habitual residence remained Canada throughout this period, as the father had only consented to a two-week trip to France, making the mother's retention of the child wrongful.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's application of the Balev hybrid approach to determine habitual residence.

On appeal from a Superior Court decision dismissing an application under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The appellant sought the return of four children to Germany, arguing they were habitually resident there.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing the children were habitually resident in Ontario.

The application judge found the children were habitually resident in Ontario and dismissed the application.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming the application of the hybrid model for determining habitual residence established in Office of the Children's Lawyer v. Balev.

The court rejected all grounds of appeal, including allegations of inadequate reasons, misapplication of the hybrid model, factual errors, and procedural errors regarding the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.