Sylvia Corthorn

The applicant mother sought to enforce and vary a 2008 child support order, including retroactive adjustments for child support and section 7 expenses for two adult children.

The respondent father disputed the retroactive application of support principles, arguing one child was no longer a "child of the marriage" when the motion was initiated.

The court characterized the mother's motion primarily as one of enforcement due to the father's failure to comply with financial disclosure obligations under the existing order.

The court determined the father's income for various years, his province of residence for child support table calculations, and the termination dates for child support for both children.

The court also addressed post-secondary education expenses, excluding bus passes, and found the father failed to prove his contributions.

For section 7 expenses, the court emphasized the requirement for advance written consent for each expense, finding the mother had disregarded this process.

The defendant, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a construction lien claim registered by the plaintiff, Construction Excedra Inc., against its property.

The defendant argued that the property was diplomatic premises and thus immune from attachment under the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act and Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

The plaintiff contended that the property was not immune or that state immunity had been waived.

The court found that certificates issued by the Minister of Foreign Affairs were conclusive proof of the property's diplomatic status and immunity from attachment, granting the defendant's motion and ordering the lien discharged.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking unpaid bonus payments after resigning from his employment.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff forfeited his entitlement to the bonus because the incentive plan required active employment at the time of payout.

The court found that the plan documents and employment letter clearly set out the active employment requirement, that the plaintiff had notice of it, and that the requirement did not contravene the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The plaintiff's motion was dismissed, and summary judgment was granted in favour of the defendants.

The defendant appealed a Master's order granting the plaintiff leave to amend her statement of claim and ordering the disclosure of a TSSA investigation file.

The plaintiff's action arose from an injury at the defendant's waterpark.

The proposed amendments included allegations regarding post-incident occurrences and a regulatory proceeding.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Master made a palpable and overriding error.

The post-incident similar fact allegations were neither material nor relevant to the plaintiff's claim in negligence, and there was no basis to order production of the TSSA file relating solely to post-incident events.

The court issued a corrigenda to an endorsement released on August 18, 2016.

The amendment added a sub-paragraph adjourning the applicant's motion for an order removing the prevention of the parents attending the children's events while in the care of the other parent.

The motion was adjourned to be brought back in accordance with the Family Law Rules.

The plaintiff was unsuccessful on its third motion seeking payment out of court of $33,900.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The defendant sought $15,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the plaintiff argued costs should be deferred to the trial judge or made payable in the cause on a partial indemnity basis.

The court awarded the defendant costs of the motion fixed at $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable in the cause, noting that both parties were responsible for delays in the litigation.

The parties attended a motion and cross-motion regarding the suspension of supervised access.

The father was successful on his motion and sought costs on a full indemnity basis for multiple events, totaling $63,662.67.

The court declined to award costs for the case conferences, finding neither party achieved particular success.

For the motion, the court awarded the father costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the mother's conduct, which unreasonably delayed the suspension of supervision and increased costs.

After reviewing the dockets and reducing excessive time and disbursements, the court fixed the costs payable by the mother to the father at $10,889.81.

The respondent wife brought a motion for interim relief regarding the matrimonial home, seeking a vesting order, exclusive possession, or an order dispensing with the applicant husband's consent to refinance a line of credit secured against the home.

The court dismissed the requests for a vesting order and exclusive possession, finding them premature before an equalization order or determination of the separation date.

However, the court granted an order dispensing with the husband's consent to allow the wife to refinance the home up to $187,000 to reduce her monthly carrying costs.

The court also struck several paragraphs of the husband's factum for being inflammatory.

The applicant, an adult under disability, sought court approval for the settlement of his Statutory Accident Benefits claim against Intact Insurance Company.

The court approved the settlement, which included a $200,000 lump sum payment and a structured settlement annuity.

The court also approved the applicant's solicitor-client account of $40,005.22.

The respondent mother brought a motion for interim spousal support, child support, section 7 expenses, sole custody, and payment of matrimonial home expenses.

The court declined to impute income to the applicant father, finding insufficient evidence that his business failure or unemployment was deliberate.

Spousal support was dismissed as the father's income was below the $20,000 floor.

The father was ordered to pay interim child support based on an income of $15,900, along with a 50% contribution to summer camp expenses.

The requests for sole custody and matrimonial home expenses were dismissed, and costs were awarded to the father.

The plaintiffs, family members of a deceased correctional officer, brought an action against the employer under the Family Law Act.

After the action was set down for trial, the defendant moved for leave to amend its statement of defence to argue the claims were barred by the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the collective agreement, and for leave to bring a summary judgment motion.

The court partially granted the motion to amend, allowing references to the Family Law Act and Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, but refused amendments relying on the collective agreement, finding the essential character of the claims did not fall within its scope.

The motion for leave to bring summary judgment was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for the release of $33,900 paid into court pursuant to a prior order.

The prior order required the defendant to release a wine inventory to the plaintiff 'on or before' September 30, 2014, for a fundraising auction, and required the plaintiff to pay funds into court pending resolution of the defendant's claim for past services.

The plaintiff argued the defendant breached the order by not releasing the wine in time for the auction.

The court found that 'on or before' meant any time on September 30, and that the defendant had complied by making the wine available that evening, but the plaintiff failed to pick it up.

The motion for payment out of court was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of the respondent's urgent motion for leave to address security concerns during supervised access.

The applicant, having successfully opposed the urgent motion, sought costs on a partial indemnity basis to the date of an offer to settle and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The court found the urgent motion issue was not complex or difficult and that the applicant's offer to settle was a significant factor.

The court awarded the applicant costs, but reduced the claimed amount due to excessive time spent on client communication and review, fixing the total costs at $17,396.27.

Jim McMurtry, a defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim, brought a motion for an order addressing an additional financial review of Mic Mac Realty (Ottawa) Ltd. The parties agreed on the firm (Welch LLP) and that the review should cover 2012 forward, but disagreed on whether to include the 1999-2006 fiscal years.

Jim argued for the earlier period due to findings of a constructive trust, while John and Brenda McMurtry opposed it based on cost-benefit and document availability concerns.

The court, applying proportionality principles under Rule 1.04, ordered Welch LLP to conduct a review for both the 1999-2006 and 2012-forward periods, initially with limited documentation for the earlier period.

The court also ordered the joint retention of an expert for a valuation of Mic Mac shares.

During an ongoing trial, one of the self-represented defendants, Stacey McAlpine, was absent due to a medical emergency and upcoming hip replacement surgeries.

The defendants sought an adjournment of the trial for at least six months.

The court, noting the lack of formal notice and detailed medical evidence, issued procedural orders.

These orders required Stacey McAlpine to provide medical documentation for his absence, make reasonable efforts to reschedule his surgeries and pre-operative appointments, and, if pursuing the adjournment, provide formal notice, evidence, and a written summary to the plaintiff's counsel and the court.

The motion for an adjournment was itself adjourned to a specific date for further consideration.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child, A.J.M., was in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship for adoption.

The child's mother, N.J.-L., opposed the motion, while the father, B.M., did not participate.

The court applied principles from the Family Law Rules and Rules of Civil Procedure, including Hryniak v. Mauldin, in the child protection context.

The court found that A.J.M. was in need of protection due to the parents' history of instability, substance abuse, domestic violence, and inconsistent engagement with the Society and access visits.

The mother's efforts to improve her parenting skills and stabilize her life were deemed insufficient and too late.

The father demonstrated no capacity to parent.

The court granted Crown wardship for adoption, terminating both parents' access, emphasizing the child's best interests and the need for timely, permanent planning.

The applicant, Patrick Cahill, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful application regarding a trust fund.

The respondents, Kevin Cahill and Sheila Kehoe, opposed the scale of costs.

The court found that the applicant's offers to settle did not meet the requirements of Rule 49 for substantial indemnity costs, nor did Sheila Kehoe's conduct warrant such an award.

Kevin Cahill's disregard for the process was noted, but his personal circumstances mitigated against a substantial indemnity award against him.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs for the main application, for which Kevin Cahill and Sheila Kehoe were jointly and severally liable.

Kevin Cahill was solely liable for partial indemnity costs related to a motion for substitutional service.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary an interim order by removing or suspending the requirement for supervised access visits with his children.

The respondent mother consented to the removal of supervision but conditioned it on a variation of the access schedule, bringing a cross-motion for this purpose based on a psychologist's recommendation.

The court granted the father's motion to suspend supervision, finding it in the children's best interests to optimize contact and noting the supervision had become problematic and costly.

However, the court dismissed the mother's cross-motion to vary the access schedule, determining that the psychologist's report was intended for trial and that changing the schedule six weeks before trial would create instability for the children.

The court ordered a gradual transition to unsupervised access and mandated parental consultation with the psychologist for assistance.

The applicant sought divorce, custody, child support, spousal support, and equalization.

The respondent was noted in default and did not participate in the uncontested trial.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant, imputed income to the respondent for child support, ordered a lump sum spousal support payment due to the respondent's unreliable payment history, and made an unequal division of net family property in favour of the applicant to account for her sole payment of matrimonial home expenses and joint debts post-separation.

A previously issued restraining order against the respondent was terminated as there was no recent evidence to support its continuation.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim based on the expiration of the limitation period.

The plaintiff alleged misappropriation of software and breach of non-disclosure agreements and fiduciary duties.

The court applied the discoverability principle under the Limitations Act, 2002, finding that the plaintiff did not discover its claim until September 11, 2009, when it confirmed the defendants authored the disputed software.

Consequently, the action, commenced on September 9, 2011, was within the two-year limitation period.

The court dismissed the limitation defense, granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiff.

Secondary issues regarding discovery were adjourned or left to the trial judge.