Susan E. Healey

The applicant brought a motion seeking disclosure orders and interim payment for legal costs and an income valuation report.

The court found the applicant's claim of urgency unfounded, noting that delays were partly attributable to the respondent's complex financial holdings and the need to obtain records from third parties.

While acknowledging some outstanding disclosure, the court observed the respondent's cooperation.

The court ordered specific disclosure, including a corporate structure chart, and an interim payment of $35,000 to the applicant for accounting/valuation costs, applying the criteria from Stuart v. Stuart.

All other relief sought by the applicant was dismissed.

Costs were ordered to be borne by each party due to mixed success and the precipitous nature of the motion.

The plaintiff construction company brought an action for unpaid invoices relating to the construction of cottages under cost-plus contracts.

The defendant developer argued that the costs exceeded the budgets and were not properly approved or invoiced.

The court found that the defendant was aware of and approved the extra work, which was necessitated by site conditions, and that the plaintiff had properly invoiced the amounts.

The court awarded the plaintiff the full amount claimed, plus contractual interest.

The respondent, Laura McCombe, brought a motion for disclosure, and the applicant, David McCombe, brought a cross-motion for disclosure and suspension of spousal support.

The motions arose from a previous disclosure order and an underlying motion to change spousal and child support.

The court addressed the ongoing disclosure disputes, emphasizing the need for "critically necessary" information to determine income, particularly for the self-employed applicant.

The court dismissed the applicant's request to suspend spousal support due to outstanding disclosure.

It ordered a structured process for the applicant to provide specific "critically necessary" financial documents and an explanation for an unconventional property purchase.

The respondent was ordered to provide a proper accounting of educational trust funds.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, no access, a restraining order, and child support following a separation triggered by the respondent father's arrest for domestic assault.

The respondent sought regular access and opposed child support.

The court found the respondent had a history of domestic violence, drug abuse, and criminal breaches, and that the children feared him and did not wish to see him.

The court ordered no access, issued a restraining order, and ordered retroactive and ongoing child support based on imputed income.

Following a trial on the parties' motions to change, the court determined the issue of costs.

Both parties had exchanged offers to settle prior to trial.

The court found that the trial outcome was more favourable to the respondent than the applicant's offer, particularly regarding spousal support.

The respondent was awarded costs of $6,000, which was discounted to reflect the applicant's positive conduct in advancing the litigation and continuing to pay support.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was granted specific performance and an abatement of the purchase price, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The court found that the defendant's conduct throughout the litigation and trial was egregious, including failing to respond to interlocutory steps, attempting to amend pleadings on the first day of trial, and calling witnesses to provide unpled and unpersuasive evidence.

As a result, the court awarded the plaintiff substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $210,000 inclusive of HST.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2004 final order, seeking to terminate child and spousal support.

The respondent mother sought retroactive adjustments to child and spousal support, payment of section 7 expenses, and ongoing spousal support due to her inability to work caused by a medical condition (Arnold Chiari malformation).

The court ordered retroactive child support back to 2004 but reduced the quantum due to delay by both parties.

Child support was terminated for all three adult children on various dates.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding the mother's health and ordered indefinite spousal support of $1,818 per month, imputing a modest income to her based on her real estate asset.

The father was also ordered to pay his proportionate share of section 7 expenses, while the mother was credited for the outstanding equalization payment and interest.

The accused, charged with arson and related offences, brought four applications during his trial.

He sought to quash a wiretap authorization, exclude the evidence of a police agent, and stay the charges due to late disclosure.

The court granted the application to quash the wiretap authorization, finding that the Information to Obtain (ITO) omitted material facts and failed to accurately present the informant's credibility issues, resulting in a breach of section 8 of the Charter.

The wiretap evidence was excluded under section 24(2).

The remaining applications, including the request for a stay of proceedings due to late disclosure, were dismissed, as the late disclosure did not irreparably prejudice the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The plaintiff estate trustee brought a motion for summary judgment seeking payment on two vendor take-back mortgages and a writ of possession for the secured property.

The self-represented defendants claimed the mortgages had been paid in cash and produced discharge documents allegedly signed by the deceased.

The court found the defendants' evidence lacked credibility, contradicted objective banking and email records, and concluded the discharge documents were forgeries.

Summary judgment was granted, ordering payment of the outstanding mortgage debts, substantial indemnity costs, and a writ of possession.

The plaintiff brought an action for specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for vacant commercial land, with an abatement of the purchase price due to the defendant's failure to install municipal services.

The defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim admitted the plaintiff's entitlement to specific performance, but at trial, the defendant attempted to argue the agreement was null and void.

The court held the defendant to its pleadings, found the plaintiff entitled to specific performance, and granted an abatement of the purchase price based on the estimated cost for the plaintiff to independently service the lands.

The defendant brought a motion to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation obtained ex parte by the plaintiff.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts, including that the original Agreement of Purchase and Sale had lapsed, that the defendant had not initialed key changes, and that the defendant's lawyer had explicitly denied the existence of a binding agreement.

The court concluded that the material non-disclosure alone warranted discharging the certificate, and further found that the evidence did not establish the plaintiff had an interest in the land.

The motion was granted and the certificate was discharged.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault and related offences, applied for certiorari to quash a DNA warrant issued under s. 487.05 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant argued that the affiant's evidence regarding the complainant's identification of him from wedding photographs and social media was speculative and tainted.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the issuing justice had sufficient credible evidence, including the complainant's identification and the presence of male DNA on her underwear, to form reasonable grounds to believe the applicant committed the offences and that his DNA would provide evidence.

The defendant, 2088556 Ontario Inc., brought a motion on the second day of trial to amend its statement of defence, seeking to withdraw key admissions and eliminate its counterclaim.

The proposed amendment introduced a new defence asserting the agreement of purchase and sale had terminated.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant failed to meet the three-part test for withdrawing admissions under Rule 51.05, particularly regarding inadvertence and the significant, non-compensable prejudice it would cause the plaintiff, M & M Homes Inc., who had relied on the original pleadings.

The defendant, 2088556 Ontario Inc., brought a second oral application for an adjournment of the trial, following the dismissal of a previous adjournment application.

The basis for the second request was a pending motion for leave to appeal the initial dismissal, which the defendant argued created uncertainty.

The court dismissed the application, affirming that the right to appeal interlocutory orders does not interrupt the course of litigation during trial.

The court emphasized that mid-trial rulings do not become final for appeal purposes until judgment is entered, and that allowing such appeals to halt proceedings would lead to scheduling chaos.

The defendant, 2088556 Ontario Inc., brought a motion for an adjournment of a scheduled trial.

The court dismissed the application, citing the defendant's history of delay, non-compliance with court orders, and lack of diligence in preparing for trial, including failing to retain counsel or an expert.

The court found that granting an adjournment would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiff, M & M Homes Inc., whose ability to recover costs was already in doubt due to the defendant's questionable property transfers.

The plaintiff's claim, alleging breach of duty by the Crown and seeking damages for "traumatic stress syndrome" related to Landlord and Tenant Board proceedings, was dismissed by the Superior Court of Justice under Rule 2.1.01.

The court found the claim to be an abuse of process, frivolous, and vexatious, as it constituted a collateral attack on Board findings, sought relief outside the court's jurisdiction, and lacked a legally recognizable cause of action against the Crown or its agents.

The applicant sought contempt and enforcement orders against the respondent for multiple breaches of a final parenting order, including travel without consent, denial of telephone and in-person access, and involving children in parental disputes.

The respondent cross-moved to reduce the applicant's access and for other interventions, alleging the children's resistance due to the applicant's temperament.

The court found the respondent in contempt for wilfully and deliberately breaching several provisions of the order, emphasizing her failure to actively promote access and her role in sabotaging the parenting schedule.

The respondent's motion to vary was dismissed, as no material change in circumstances was found.

The court ordered the respondent to comply with the order, attend a parenting course with the applicant, and pay half the cost of a prior counselling session.

The defendant brought a request under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented, alleged that the defendant lawyer was involved in a conspiracy with federal defendants to sabotage his case and have him assaulted.

The court found the allegations to be completely devoid of reality and noted that the plaintiff had sued the defendant in at least four other actions that were similarly dismissed.

The court invoked Rule 1.04 to permit the dismissal of the action against a single defendant under Rule 2.1.01, and dismissed the claim against the moving party.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to close a real estate transaction.

The purchaser had entered into an unconditional agreement of purchase and sale but failed to close because she could not sell her own property in a cooling market.

The vendor relisted and sold the property for a lower price and sued for the difference and carrying costs.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the purchaser breached the agreement and the vendor reasonably mitigated her damages by reselling the property at fair market value.

The defendants moved to strike out several paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim under Rules 21.01(1)(b), 25.06, and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action involved an alleged breach of contract regarding the operation and sale of a pizza franchise.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the claim asserted a well-recognized cause of action for breach of contract and was not frivolous or vexatious.

The plaintiff's cross-motion to compel documentary production was also dismissed as premature.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.