Sylvia Corthorn

The Children's Aid Society initially sought summary judgment for extended care of three children but withdrew it.

The respondent mother then brought a motion for a temporary or final order placing the children in her care.

The court considered the children's best interests under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and the mother's progress since her incarceration and criminal charges.

Despite some concerns regarding contact with the father and transparency, the court found that a temporary order returning the children to the mother's care, subject to detailed conditions, was in their best interests.

The court emphasized the mother's significant improvements and the children's desire to live with her.

This application concerned the approval of a contingency fee retainer agreement (CFRA) for personal injury litigation involving a plaintiff under a disability.

The court approved an overall 25% contingency fee for the main action and third-party claim, to be split 15% for Connolly Obagi LLP and 10% for previous counsel, Christopher Moore.

However, the court dismissed Connolly Obagi LLP's request to receive costs recovered from the opposing party, finding no "exceptional circumstances" to deviate from the rule that costs go to the client.

The court also provided directions for the continuation of settlement approval motions and the finalization of solicitor-client accounts.

This motion sought court approval for a settlement of the plaintiff's claim against Economical Mutual Insurance Company, where the plaintiff is a person under a disability.

The proposed settlement involved dismissing the claim without costs.

The court identified significant deficiencies in the motion record, including a lack of clear evidence regarding the settlement terms, issues with the contingency fee retainer agreement (CFRA) not meeting statutory requirements, and the absence of a proposed solicitor-client account for approval.

The court also noted procedural irregularities in affidavit commissioning and the inclusion of pleadings as affidavit exhibits.

The motion for settlement approval was not granted, and the plaintiff was directed to provide additional materials and clarify the relief sought.

The plaintiff, Knowmadics, sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendants, Lisa Cinnamon and LDX Inc., from offering for sale and selling certain software ("cover app") and requiring its removal from their website.

Knowmadics alleged copyright infringement and breach of confidentiality agreements regarding software developed while Cinnamon was an employee and contractor.

The defendants claimed prior ownership of the cover app.

The court applied the three-part test for an interim injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding ownership and NDA infringement, irreparable harm to Knowmadics due to customer confusion and devaluation of investment, and that the balance of convenience favored Knowmadics.

The motion for interim relief was granted.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking a week-on/week-off summer parenting schedule for her 12-year-old daughter and procedural relief to strike portions of the respondent father's affidavit and an exhibit.

The court denied the mother's request for a week-on/week-off schedule due to insufficient evidence, instead granting her a single five-day period of additional parenting time and one make-up overnight.

The court granted the mother's procedural requests, striking a psychologist's letter and several paragraphs from the father's affidavit for failing to meet evidentiary requirements or referencing settlement conference communications.

The mother's request for a finding of parental alienation was denied without prejudice due to lack of proper notice.

This ruling addresses the final terms of judgment following a trial where liability was apportioned 60% to Ultramar and 40% to the plaintiffs.

The court resolved disputes between the parties regarding the precise wording of the judgment, specifically concerning the subrogated claim, Ultramar's crossclaim for indemnity, and the inclusion of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The court largely adopted the plaintiffs' proposed judgment wording, emphasizing that a judgment must reflect the enforceable result rather than the underlying calculations or reasons for decision.

Pre-judgment interest and costs were noted as subjects for a subsequent order.

The applicant sought judicial review of an appraisal decision regarding losses from a house fire, arguing the umpire exceeded his jurisdiction in valuing the contents and breached procedural fairness by failing to provide written reasons for the building's depreciation rate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the umpire's valuation of the contents was reasonable and did not determine legal entitlement.

The court also held that the appraisal process met procedural fairness requirements, as oral reasons were provided and written reasons were not requested.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking approval of an infant settlement in a motor vehicle accident case.

The requested relief included dispensing with service of supporting affidavits, approval of a contingency fee retainer agreement (CFRA) for the infant plaintiffs, and approval of the settlement dismissing the infant claims without costs.

The court granted the order to dispense with service of affidavits and approved the infant settlement, finding it reasonable and in the infants' best interests.

However, the court declined to approve the CFRA, questioning its validity as it was entered into after the settlement had been reached.

The balance of the action was dismissed without costs.

Jeffrey Wills was found guilty of four sexual offenses involving two young girls in his home daycare.

This decision addresses his sentencing.

The Crown sought a five-year sentence, while the defense proposed 12-24 months and a conditional stay for two counts related to one victim based on the Kienapple principle.

The court denied the Kienapple stay, finding the offenses distinct.

Aggravating factors included the high position of trust as a daycare operator, the young age of the victims, and the egregious breach of trust.

Mitigating factors were the offender's education and family support, though media coverage impact was not accepted as mitigating without evidence.

The court considered the prior 60-month sentence from the first trial, noting the increased impact on victims due to testifying in the second trial.

The court imposed a total sentence of 60 months, with specific concurrent and consecutive terms for each count, and ancillary orders including DNA submission, communication prohibitions, Sex Offender Information Registration Act compliance, and s. 161 prohibitions.

The parties sought a determination on the applicable interest rate for child support and post-secondary education arrears previously found owing.

The respondent mother argued for a 6% post-judgment interest rate from the 2008 order date, accruing from default, based on s. 129 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant father proposed various alternative average interest rates or the rate from the date of the endorsement quantifying arrears.

The court found that the father's obligations were known from the 2008 order, and the mother's motion was for enforcement.

The court rejected the father's proposals for lack of certainty and insufficient evidence to exercise discretion under s. 130 CJA.

The court applied s. 129(1) and (2) of the CJA, ruling that a 6% post-judgment interest rate from the 2008 order date applied, accruing from the date of each default.

No costs were awarded due to the parties' unreasonable litigation conduct on this issue.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order to place A.S. in the custody of his father, L.S., in Calgary.

The mother, K.F., opposed the motion and sought custody or a supervision order.

The court denied K.F.'s request for an adjournment, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding her ability to parent due to persistent mental health issues and an unstable lifestyle.

While finding that A.S.'s removal from K.F.'s care was necessary and that placement with L.S. was in A.S.'s best interests, the court deferred a final order pending an updated assessment of L.S.'s family by Calgary Child Welfare Services.

An interim order was made placing A.S. in the temporary care and custody of L.S.

At a trial management conference for two related actions, the court addressed delays in obtaining a joint expert report on corporate finances and concerns regarding a party's capacity to testify following a stroke.

On consent, the court ordered peremptory deadlines for the production of financial documents to the expert and for the completion of the expert's report.

The court also ordered, on consent, that the party who suffered a stroke undergo an assessment to determine whether he is a person under a disability requiring a litigation guardian under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff commercial tenant sought rectification of a 2008 lease to include a 5-year extension provision found in a 2007 document.

The court dismissed the claim for rectification, finding no common mistake in omitting the extension provision from the 2008 lease, as the plaintiff's principal was experienced and careful in negotiations.

However, the court found that the 2007 document remained a valid stand-alone agreement binding the parties.

The applicant, a third mortgagee, brought an urgent application for an injunction to prevent the first mortgagee from selling a commercial property under a power of sale, and for an order permitting it to redeem the mortgage.

The court found that the applicant's right to redeem was extinguished when the first mortgagee accepted an offer to purchase the property, as the applicant had failed to tender the required funds when it had the opportunity to do so.

The court also held that the applicant failed to meet the three-part test for an interlocutory injunction, finding no serious issue to be tried regarding alleged bad faith, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the respondents.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiffs and their insurer, Allstate, brought a motion for default judgment against an uninsured snowmobile driver who struck the plaintiff pedestrian.

The plaintiffs had previously settled their first-party claims with Allstate and assigned their rights against the other defendants to the insurer.

The court declined to grant the requested relief, finding that additional materials were required to clarify the nature of the claims being advanced, the steps taken to discontinue against the Crown, and the evidence supporting the quantum of indemnity and costs sought.

The minor plaintiff, through her litigation guardian, brought a motion for leave to discontinue the action against one of the defendants, the property lessor, after learning the slip and fall occurred inside the store.

The plaintiff also sought to dispense with service on the Children's Lawyer.

The court declined to grant the relief requested due to several deficiencies in the motion record, including inconsistent consents from other defendants, lack of position from cross-claiming defendants, failure to serve the litigation guardian, and insufficient evidence supporting the request to dispense with service on the Children's Lawyer.

The court remained seized and directed the filing of additional materials.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion to find the applicant mother in contempt of previous court orders regarding a week-on/week-off parenting schedule and mandated counselling for the children.

The mother argued that the father failed to effect special service and that a contempt motion was premature.

The court waived the special service requirement but agreed that a contempt motion was premature given the conflicting affidavit evidence regarding the breakdown of the parenting arrangement.

The court adjourned the contempt motion and ordered the parties to attend a case conference to attempt to resolve the issues.

The applicant mother brought a motion to amend a previous endorsement, arguing that the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) had incorrectly credited the respondent father twice for child support arrears paid in 2015.

The court reviewed the FRO's accounting adjustments and the parties' prior agreement on the arrears amount.

The court found no error in the previous endorsement or in the FRO's calculations, concluding that the adjustments accurately reflected the combined effect of the endorsement and the parties' agreement.

The motion was dismissed with no costs.

The plaintiff, as assignee of a trustee in bankruptcy, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to set aside the transfer of six properties from the bankrupt corporation to the spouse of its sole director.

The transfers occurred less than three months before the corporation filed a notice of intention to make a proposal in bankruptcy.

The court found that the transfers were made at undervalue between non-arm's length parties, constituted a fraudulent preference, and were fraudulent conveyances.

The court declared the transfers void and ordered them set aside, subject to a further hearing regarding a mortgage on some of the properties.

Following a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action where success was divided, the court determined costs.

Although the plaintiff was successful on two of three critical issues, the monetary result was less favourable than the defendant's offer to settle.

Applying Rule 49.10(2), the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer, and the defendant partial indemnity costs thereafter, resulting in a net costs award of $20,390 payable by the plaintiff to the defendant.