Susan Vella

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' 12-year-old child continue to reside primarily with her in Etobicoke and attend his current school.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking to relocate the child to Kitchener to live with him and attend a new school, relying on a prior agreement between the parties.

The court found that the mother had previously consented to the relocation and school change before unilaterally withdrawing her consent.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, and considering the Voice of the Child Report which indicated the child's preference to move, the court granted the father's cross-motion and ordered the child to relocate to Kitchener.

The respondent father sought an order for reunification therapy for the child, alleging parental alienation by the applicant mother.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the cause of the family dysfunction was unclear on the evidence, there was no compelling evidence that the proposed therapy would be beneficial, and the motion was brought too close to trial.

The court preferred to defer the determination of therapeutic orders and family violence allegations to trial, where a more fulsome evidentiary record and witness credibility assessment would be possible.

The Respondent Father brought a motion seeking a declaration that the Applicant Mother was in breach of previous court orders, a compliance order, and parenting orders, including changing the summer holiday schedule and prohibiting the child from sleeping in the same bed as either parent.

The court found that the Father had not proven material non-compliance by the Mother, noting only isolated incidents of minor non-compliance.

The court also ruled that the Father failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances required to vary an interim parenting order under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The motion was dismissed, with the court emphasizing that the requested substantive relief was not in the child's best interests and lacked expert evidence.

This was an uncontested trial where the Applicant sought divorce, child support, sole decision-making authority, and supervised parenting time for the children.

A preliminary issue of jurisdiction under the Divorce Act was addressed, with the court finding sufficient evidence of the Syrian marriage.

The court granted sole decision-making authority to the Applicant mother, ordered supervised parenting time for the Respondent father due to his lack of involvement and allegations of family violence, and imputed income to the father for child support calculations, ordering retroactive and ongoing support.

The applicant father sought an immediate equal parenting schedule (2-2-3) for their 29-month-old son.

The respondent mother proposed a graduated schedule with increasing overnight time for the father.

The court, considering the child's best interests, young age, and the AFCC Parenting Plan Guidelines for toddlers, ordered a graduated interim and temporary parenting schedule.

This schedule provides for a transition from two separate overnights to three overnights per week for the father, while maintaining the child's weekday care with maternal grandparents.

The court emphasized that the status quo is not a default and there is no presumption for shared parenting, but also noted the thin evidentiary record and encouraged further mediation.

The Applicant mother sought interim and retroactive child support, as well as contributions to and retroactive payment for Section 7 expenses from the Respondent father.

The father did not dispute the obligation to pay child support but argued he could not afford the requested amount and that funds held by the mother from an investment property sale should satisfy the arrears.

The court found the mother's calculations, based on the father's reported income, to be in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines.

The court ordered the father to pay ongoing child support and 50% of Section 7 expenses, along with significant retroactive arrears for both, allowing the mother to apply the held funds towards the arrears and setting up an installment plan for the remaining balance.

The court also ordered the father to provide tax returns and maintain a life insurance policy.

Costs were awarded to the mother on a partial indemnity basis.

This is an uncontested trial decision where the Applicant sought a divorce, reimbursement for mortgage contributions, compensation for unreturned personal belongings, and costs.

The court granted all requested orders, finding the Applicant's claims supported by the Domestic Agreement and uncontested evidence, and awarded full recovery costs due to the Respondent's refusal to engage.

The Co-Respondents, Reza Dadras and Nasrin Hakimi (the "Parents-in-law"), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims made against them by the Applicant, Hossein Mehdian.

Hossein sought, among other things, a declaration of a 50% beneficial interest in a property (the "BP Property") held by the Parents-in-law, alleging unjust enrichment and seeking a constructive or resulting trust based on his and Katayoun's (his spouse and the Parents-in-law's daughter) monetary and non-monetary contributions.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues of material fact requiring a trial, particularly due to the lack of evidence from Katayoun and the need for credibility assessments regarding the alleged contributions and mutual understanding.

However, the court granted the Parents-in-law's preliminary motion to strike certain inflammatory paragraphs from Hossein's Application and granted leave for Hossein to withdraw an erroneous spousal support claim against the Parents-in-law.

The court also addressed the admissibility of late-disclosed documents and the limitation period defence, finding both raised issues for trial.

The respondent mother brought a motion to set aside the child support provisions of the parties' Minutes of Settlement, or alternatively the entire agreement, alleging the applicant father failed to disclose significant assets and income.

The father consented to setting aside the child support and section 7 expenses provisions.

The court declined to set aside the entire agreement on a motion, finding genuine issues of fact regarding financial disclosure that require a trial.

The court ordered temporary child support based on the father's agreed income, leaving the issue of imputing income and retroactive support for trial.

The applicant, Lithium Royalty Corporation (LRC), brought an application to enforce an alleged contract for the purchase of an 85% interest in a lithium mining royalty from Orion Resource Partners (Orion).

The court addressed three main issues: whether LRC should be granted leave to add specific Orion entities as respondents (misnomer/amendment), whether the court had jurisdiction over these proposed respondents, and whether an enforceable contract was formed.

The court granted leave to add the Orion entities, finding they had voluntarily attorned to the court's jurisdiction.

It further found that a binding and enforceable contract for the royalty purchase was formed between LRC and Orion, and that this contract was not void under Nevada's Statute of Frauds.

The plaintiff and defendant were neighbours in a condominium building.

The plaintiff made numerous complaints about excessive noise and marijuana smoke emanating from the defendant's unit.

The defendant experienced vandalism to her door and reported the plaintiff to the police, resulting in the plaintiff's arrest for mischief, though charges were later stayed.

The plaintiff sued for malicious prosecution, defamation, negligence, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of mental suffering, harassment, and nuisance.

The court dismissed all claims except private nuisance, finding the defendant's excessive noise constituted a substantial and unreasonable interference with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of her unit.

The plaintiff was awarded $15,000 in general damages.

The applicant purchaser sought declarations that the respondent vendor was not entitled to a 'Bonus Density' payment under their Agreement of Purchase and Sale, and an order discharging a $25 million security mortgage.

The dispute arose after a Minister's Zoning Order (MZO) approved an aggregate density for a combined transit-oriented development that included the subject property and adjacent third-party lands.

The court held that the MZO did not trigger the Bonus Density payment because it did not allocate density specifically to the subject property, making the determination premature.

The court also dismissed the applicant's request to discharge the security mortgage and the respondent's motion to convert the application into an action.

This decision provides supplementary reasons for judgment in a land claim case.

Following an earlier declaration that a substantial portion of Sauble Beach was reserved for the sole use and benefit of the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation and forms part of Saugeen Indian Reserve No. 29, the court considered whether to grant a life interest in certain 'Disputed Lots' to current family title owners (Landowners).

The Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation and Canada opposed this.

The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to impose a proprietary interest contrary to the Indian Act and Constitution Act, as reserve land is inalienable.

It also found that granting such an interest would not advance reconciliation.

Consequently, the temporary delay in the original declaration that no third parties have an interest in the land was terminated, making the declaration effective immediately.

The defendant landlord brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that a commercial lease was terminated due to a change of ownership clause, an order for the tenant to vacate, and payment of double rent under an overholding clause.

The plaintiff tenant argued the change of ownership clause was unenforceable due to unconscionability, vagueness, or waiver, and that the termination notice was invalid.

The court granted the landlord's motion, finding the change of ownership clause valid and enforceable, rejecting the tenant's arguments regarding unconscionability, ambiguity, and waiver.

The court declared the lease terminated upon the property sale, ordered the tenant to vacate, and found the tenant liable for double rent as an overholding tenant.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking to have the respondent father found in contempt of several court orders, including alleged failures to administer medication to their child, transporting the child on an e-bike, producing an accurate income valuation report, and complying with costs orders.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the applicant had not proven the alleged breaches beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the required standard for contempt.

The decision clarified that a failure to comply with a payment order is excluded as a ground for contempt under the Family Law Rules and that the orders regarding medical decision-making and the valuation report were not sufficiently clear and unequivocal to support a contempt finding.

The applicant, Marion Breukelman, sought to consolidate two civil proceedings (a civil action and an employment action) into her ongoing family law application.

The court granted the motion for consolidation, finding that the proceedings shared common questions of fact and law, particularly regarding the beneficial ownership of shares in a family business (R. Avis Surveying Inc.).

The court emphasized that consolidation would promote judicial efficiency, save legal expenses for the parties, and, most importantly, avoid the risk of inconsistent judgments across the related proceedings.

Despite concerns raised by the respondent and other parties about inconvenience, the court determined that the balance of convenience favoured consolidation, noting that the Family Law Rules provide tools for efficient case management.

The applicants sought relief arising from Minutes of Settlement concerning the respondents' proposed building of a new three-story house, alleging breaches related to a third-story deck/patio doors overlooking their backyard, and soil addition potentially harming their tree.

The court found no breach of the Minutes of Settlement, determining that the respondents' building plans were in "substantial compliance" with the agreed-upon Revised Zoning Drawings.

The court also found no expert evidence to substantiate the applicants' drainage or tree damage concerns and dismissed the application, noting that the parties had resolved a separate mutual right-of-way issue.

The Gilmans moved to dismiss a construction lien action and a civil counterclaim brought by 2675076 Ontario Inc. and Cesare Fazari, citing persistent non-compliance with court orders and undertakings regarding documentation of alleged outstanding construction costs.

The court found that 2675076 Ontario Inc. failed to diligently advance the construction lien action as required by the Construction Act.

Consequently, the construction lien was vacated, and the Construction Lien Action was dismissed.

While acknowledging the persistent non-compliance, the court, applying Rule 60.12, granted 2675076 Ontario Inc. and Mr. Fazari one final 30-day opportunity to fulfill outstanding undertakings for the Civil Counterclaim, failing which it would also be dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the appropriate resolution of costs and clarification of damages following a wrongful dismissal summary judgment motion.

The court determined that for the purpose of comparing a judgment to a Rule 49 offer, damages awards for wrongful dismissal are reduced by statutory termination payments.

Consequently, the plaintiff did not obtain a result more favourable than their Rule 49 offer, nor did the defendant's offer trigger cost consequences under Rule 49.10(2) as the court's award exceeded it when statutory payments were factored in.

The court also ruled that tax consequences are not relevant in a Rule 49 analysis.

The plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs, and the net value of the judgment was clarified.

The Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation brought an action seeking a declaration that a 1.4-mile strip of Sauble Beach (the Disputed Beach) is part of their unsurrendered reserve land under Treaty 72 of 1854.

The court found that the Imperial Crown's surveyor, Charles Rankin, improperly marked the northern terminus of the reserve's eastern boundary further south than the Treaty stipulated, depriving the First Nation of the promised coastline.

The court held that the Imperial Crown and the federal Crown breached their sui generis fiduciary duties and acted inconsistently with the honour of the Crown by failing to properly survey, protect, and preserve the reserve.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments that the First Nation's claim was defeated by Crown patents, the doctrine of bona fide purchaser for value without notice, the Limitations Act, laches, dedication, or proprietary estoppel.

The court declared that the Disputed Beach remains unsurrendered reserve land for the sole use and benefit of the First Nation.