Sylvia Corthorn

The plaintiff brought a motion in writing, without notice, for default judgment against one of the defendants after his statement of defence was struck.

The court held that the motion could not proceed in writing or without notice because there was no evidence that service was impracticable or unnecessary.

The motion was adjourned to proceed to an oral hearing, with directions provided for the filing of a proper motion record and factum.

The applicant brought a motion to strike an affidavit sworn by his mother, one of the respondent trustees, on the basis that she was not produced for cross-examination due to concerns about her capacity.

The applicant argued that admitting the affidavit would prejudice the fair hearing of his application to remove the trustees and would be an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant had not availed himself of opportunities to cross-examine the affiant with accommodations or to seek court directions earlier.

The court held that the affidavit should be admitted, with the lack of cross-examination going to the weight of the evidence to be determined at the hearing.

The moving party sought approval of a settlement dismissing a third party claim without costs.

The court found multiple deficiencies in the motion record, including failure to properly cite the grounds for the motion, failure to include pleadings, and failure to address whether the third party defended the main action, which would trigger the requirement for court approval under Rule 7.08 due to a plaintiff being under disability.

The court also noted the draft order was deficient.

The motion was adjourned with directions to file a proper motion record.

The respondents brought a motion in writing on consent to disburse surplus proceeds from a mortgage sale.

The applicant bank had failed to comply with a previous order requiring the proceeds to be paid into court, instead holding them in its counsel's trust account.

To avoid further delay and expense, the court applied the Rules of Civil Procedure liberally, varied the previous order to reflect the funds being held in trust, and ordered the disbursement of the funds to the parties and their counsel as agreed.

The plaintiff sought costs following a motion for injunctive and non-injunctive relief related to a shareholder dispute over residential properties.

Although the request for an injunction was dismissed, the court granted equitable non-injunctive relief that protected the plaintiff's alleged interest in the properties.

The court found that the plaintiff achieved a measure of success on the motion, as the defendants had refused to extend their undertaking or agree to the relief sought.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs of the motion on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $32,770, payable in the cause.

TD General Insurance Company brought a motion in writing to be added as a statutory third party under s. 258(14) of the Insurance Act, denying coverage to the deceased defendant due to an alleged breach of statutory conditions.

The court adjourned the motion to an oral hearing, citing numerous procedural and substantive deficiencies, including counsel acting as both advocate and affiant, lack of service, and failure to specify the alleged breached conditions.

Following the dismissal of the father's urgent motion regarding custody and access, the mother sought costs on a full recovery basis.

The court found the mother was the successful party and entitled to costs.

Considering the father's failure to attempt negotiation and the reasonableness of the mother's counsel's fees, the court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $5,150, declining full recovery due to a lack of detailed docket breakdown.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action seeking over $150 million in damages against numerous individuals, agencies, and institutions relating to an unsuccessful adoption process.

Several defendants requisitioned the court to dismiss the action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found the statement of claim consisted of broad, sweeping allegations lacking substantive content to support any known cause of action.

The court dismissed the action against the requisitioning defendants and, on its own initiative, dismissed the action in its entirety against all remaining defendants.

The plaintiff was previously awarded $345,000 in damages following a default judgment for historical sexual abuse.

In this endorsement, the court determined the plaintiff's entitlement to pre-judgment interest and costs.

The court found that pre-judgment interest began to run on the date the statement of claim was issued, applying the prescribed rate of 5 percent per year to the general non-pecuniary damages.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a substantial indemnity scale pursuant to the Victims' Bill of Rights, fixing the total costs at $35,545.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for default judgment against the corporate tenant and its president, as personal indemnifier, after the tenant abandoned the commercial premises and defaulted on rent and arrears payments.

The defendants were noted in default.

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff was entitled to damages for rent arrears, accelerated rent, and lost future rent, without reduction for failure to mitigate, as the plaintiff's efforts to re-lease the premises were reasonable.

The court also awarded pre-judgment interest and full indemnity costs.

The applicant sought an order under s. 250(1) of the Business Corporations Act to rectify the respondent corporation's records by removing her name as a director.

The applicant discovered she had been listed as a director without her consent when she received letters from the Canada Revenue Agency regarding the corporation's unpaid source deductions.

The respondents did not appear.

The court found the applicant never consented to the appointment and granted a declaration that she was never a director, ordering the respondents to rectify the corporate records.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against his late brother's estate for historical sexual abuse.

The estate was noted in default.

The court accepted the plaintiff's affidavit evidence and expert psychological evidence detailing the severe, long-term impacts of the abuse, including PTSD and substance use disorder.

The court awarded $275,000 in general non-pecuniary damages, $45,000 for future psychotherapy, and $25,000 in punitive damages, totaling $345,000.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking an order or declaration that $24,000 paid to the applicant in the first six months of 2019 constituted spousal support, primarily to secure tax relief for his 2019 tax return.

The court found insufficient evidence to infer the payments were spousal support, noting the lack of agreement, incomplete financial disclosure, and the interim nature of subsequent support orders.

The cross-motion was dismissed without prejudice to the respondent raising the issue at trial.

The defendant hospital requested the summary dismissal of the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff, who had a previous action stayed, alleged breaches of privacy regarding his medical chart.

The court found that while the pleading might have deficiencies or be partially duplicative of the stayed action, it was not so clearly unmeritorious as to warrant summary dismissal.

The defendant's request was dismissed without costs.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file financial documents under the Canada Elections Act.

Although the Chief Electoral Officer consented to the extension, the applicant failed to comply with the procedural requirements for an application under Rule 38 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including failing to file an application record or factum.

The court adjourned the application, directing the applicant to file the necessary materials before the matter could proceed.

The parties brought urgent motions concerning interim custody and parenting time for their two children.

The father sought sole custody and primary residence, while the mother sought an interim order for a week-on/week-off schedule and a return to previous orders.

The court dismissed the father's motion for sole custody and primary residence, maintaining the mother's primary residence and decision-making authority.

The court ordered a gradual transition to a week-on/week-off parenting schedule over three months, recognizing the children's need for stability amidst pandemic-related disruptions and the importance of both parents actively encouraging time with the other.

Procedural issues with affidavit evidence were also noted.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion brought by 10313033 Canada Inc., Madeleine Bonhomme, and Sameh Mansour (the Moving Parties) to strike Antranik Kechichian's Third Party Counterclaim.

The Counterclaim was struck as duplicative, frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process, and a collateral attack.

The court found Kechichian's conduct abusive and his pleading devoid of merit, justifying an award of costs on the substantial indemnity scale.

The court adjusted the Moving Parties' requested disbursements and fees, primarily by removing costs associated with counsel's travel from Toronto to Ottawa.

This amended ruling addresses a father's motion to change and a mother's cross-motion to change, primarily concerning custody, child support, and special expenses for their child.

The court found that the parties' inability to communicate effectively and their fundamental disagreements rendered joint custody unworkable.

Considering the child's best interests, particularly the father's ability to provide a stable home and the mother's past breaches of orders and lack of educational support, sole custody was granted to the father.

The mother's income was imputed to $30,000 for child support purposes, and the father's income remained at $36,000.

Special expenses under s. 7 of the Divorce Act, including recreational cheerleading, are to be shared equally, with the father solely responsible for the additional costs of competitive cheerleading.

The court emphasized the need for both parents to support the child's interests and improve communication.

The applicant, a minor, sought court approval for a settlement of her Statutory Accident Benefits claim and leave to amend her notice of application.

The court granted leave to amend, approved the $100,000 settlement, and approved a solicitor-client account for fees and disbursements, with the settlement funds to be paid directly to the applicant upon her 18th birthday.

The court declined to approve the contingency fee agreement due to deficiencies.

The plaintiffs sought an order to dispense with service of a motion record, remove litigation guardians for adult children, and approve a minor's settlement following a motor vehicle accident.

The court dismissed the request to dispense with service due to lack of evidence and outlined several procedural deficiencies regarding the minor plaintiffs reaching the age of majority, the consent documentation, and the form of the draft order.

The substantive aspects of the motion were deferred pending resolution of these procedural issues.