Sylvia Corthorn

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to find the applicant mother in contempt of a final order regarding a parenting schedule.

The father alleged the mother failed to revert to the original two-week rotation after a temporary four-week schedule, which he claimed was time-limited.

The court found no evidence that the agreed-upon change to the four-week rotation was time-limited and determined that once a change is agreed, it remains in effect until a further agreement or court order.

The motion for contempt was dismissed.

The court also provided guidance on parental cooperation regarding children's activities, emphasizing joint decision-making and ensuring children's attendance at activities.

Following a decision on share ownership, the court held a trial management conference to determine next steps in the consolidated actions, which include an oppression remedy claim.

The court directed the parties to consider whether a stay motion will be brought pending an appeal of the initial decision, how to efficiently gather and present extensive financial evidence, and the potential for a mid-trial settlement conference.

The conference was adjourned to allow counsel to obtain instructions.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for interim access to his adoptive daughter, Victoria, aged 13.

The parties had been separated since 2011, and access difficulties escalated in 2014, ceasing entirely in September 2015.

The father alleged parental alienation, while the mother cited Victoria's wishes and negative home environment with the father's new family.

The court, considering the child's best interests under the Divorce Act and Children's Law Reform Act, found that both parents had failed to adequately support Victoria through family changes.

The court ordered a gradual resumption of access visits, starting weekly and increasing to twice weekly, to occur in the community, with a review period.

The court emphasized the custodial parent's positive obligation to encourage contact and cautioned against making findings of parental alienation without individualized assessment.

The applicant, as estate trustee, sought a declaration that he was the sole owner of bank accounts by right of survivorship, or alternatively, directions from the court.

The accounts were solely in the deceased's name at death, despite a "Declaration of Intention" to make them joint.

The court found significant procedural and substantive deficiencies, including conflicts of interest for the applicant and his counsel, inadequate evidence regarding the deceased's capacity and instructions, unclear consents from beneficiaries, and improper service on respondents.

The application was adjourned to allow the applicant to address these issues, obtain independent legal advice, and properly serve revised materials.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay, which the plaintiff consented to, leaving only the issue of costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, citing the plaintiff's lack of response to communications and failure to comply with prior court orders.

The plaintiff argued for partial indemnity costs, claiming the fees were excessive and that her inaction amounted to abandonment.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs and awarded partial indemnity, reducing the claimed hours for motion preparation.

The applicant father sought sole custody and child support for his son.

The respondent mother did not respond to the application, leading to an uncontested trial.

The court reviewed evidence detailing the mother's history of substance abuse, domestic violence, and lack of involvement in the child's life, as well as the father's efforts to provide a stable environment.

The court granted the father sole custody, with the mother's access to be entirely at the father's discretion and supervised.

The application for child support was dismissed without prejudice due to insufficient evidence of the mother's income.

The applicant sought to terminate child support payments for his two sons, Jonathan and Brendan, pursuant to a 2007 separation agreement.

The motion was initially heard in August 2015 as an uncontested trial.

The court noted deficiencies in the applicant's financial disclosure and ordered him to serve complete documents on the unrepresented respondent.

The respondent failed to respond to the motion to change on both occasions.

The court found that terminating events had occurred for both children: Jonathan ceased post-secondary education by January 1, 2013, and Brendan stopped residing with the respondent by February 2015.

The court granted the termination of child support for Jonathan effective December 31, 2012, and for Brendan effective January 31, 2015, finding it fair and reasonable with no prejudice to the respondent or children.

The applicant was not seeking reimbursement for any overpayment.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking historical child support arrears and an order for the respondent father to add the children as beneficiaries to his employee benefits.

The father sought to suspend child support due to unemployment and argued for reduced support during periods when one child attended a residential school and during an alleged period of joint shared custody.

The court found that the father failed to establish a material change in circumstances to reduce child support during the academic terms, distinguishing the case from situations involving adult children in post-secondary education and reaffirming that residential school attendance does not automatically trigger the 40% shared custody rule.

The court also found no agreement for joint custody during the disputed three-month period in 2014.

The father was ordered to pay $18,927 in arrears.

Issues regarding ongoing child support from January 2015 and annual review provisions were adjourned.

Mildred McMurtry sought a declaration of ownership for 10 shares in Mic Mac Realty (Ottawa) Ltd. (MMR), alleging they were part of her late husband's estate, of which she was the residuary beneficiary.

Her son, John McMurtry, claimed the shares were a gift from his father or completed by him as an executor.

The court found no completed gift and that the shares remained part of the estate.

However, Mildred's claim for ownership was barred by the equitable doctrines of laches and estoppel due to her delay and acquiescence, and a constructive trust was imposed, holding the shares for John's benefit.

The court also addressed the nature of declaratory relief and limitation periods.

The respondent mother sought leave to proceed on an urgent basis with a motion to address the level of security for children during supervised access visits with the applicant father, citing new criminal charges against the father, home break-ins, and alleged death threats.

The court applied the two-part test for urgency from *Rosen v. Rosen*, considering the availability of a case conference date and efforts to negotiate a short-term resolution.

The court found that the mother failed to satisfy both parts of the test and that the circumstances were not so extreme as to warrant immediate intervention, especially given the mother's prior willingness to continue access arrangements despite some of the alleged events.

The motion for urgency was dismissed, and the parties were directed to address the issues at the scheduled case conference.

The applicant father sought an interim order to increase his access visits with his 10-year-old daughter from once a month to every second weekend and to permit unaccompanied air travel for the child.

The respondent mother opposed this, proposing instead an extension of the duration of existing visits.

The court refused to admit the report of the child's treating psychologist due to lack of objectivity and incompleteness.

The court also declined to rely on the Office of the Children's Lawyer reports for increasing access frequency or changing the transportation method, finding that the circumstances did not meet the "exceptional circumstances" or "Bos" criteria for interim reliance on assessment reports.

While acknowledging the "maximum contact" principle, the court found the applicant's cited cases distinguishable.

The court granted the respondent's proposal for extended access duration for specific months, adjusted summer access dates slightly, allowed flexibility in access location within Canada, and ordered disclosure of the respondent's residential address with a restriction.

The primary requests for increased frequency and unaccompanied air travel were denied on an interim basis.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment on a mortgage against the mortgagor and the guarantor.

The court found that the mortgagor was properly served and noted in default, granting judgment against her for the principal, interest, and costs.

However, the court found that the guarantor was not properly served personally, as the statement of claim was left with his son at the mortgagor's address.

The noting in default against the guarantor was invalid, and the motion against him was adjourned.

The plaintiff, who alleged injuries from an OC Transpo bus accident, brought a motion seeking an order that the defendant City of Ottawa pay interim costs to fund the disbursements required for his documentary discovery, citing his impecuniosity.

The court applied the test from Okanagan Indian Band and found that while the plaintiff was impecunious and had a prima facie case, there were no special circumstances to justify an extraordinary award of interim costs in a routine personal injury action.

The motion for interim costs was dismissed, but the court set a timetable for the completion of documentary and oral discovery.

The Family Responsibility Office (FRO) brought a motion for a warrant of committal against the respondent for approximately $89,000 in child and spousal support arrears.

The respondent had been making regular payments through wage garnishment since 2009 but had fallen behind on the total amounts owed under a 2007 separation agreement.

The court dismissed the motion for committal, finding that the respondent's conduct did not meet the test for incarceration as a last resort, especially given his ongoing payments and pending motion to change support.

However, the court ordered the respondent to pay an additional $300 per month towards the arrears pending the outcome of his motion to change.

The plaintiff commenced a $1,000,000 professional negligence action against the defendant dentist, alleging an allergic reaction to latex during treatment.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

Despite multiple adjournments and court orders over 15 months, the self-represented plaintiff failed to advance the litigation or produce any expert evidence to support her claim.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial as the plaintiff failed to provide the requisite expert evidence to establish the standard of care, breach, or causation.

The testator's will appointed his daughter and son as executors and directed them to set aside $100,000 in a trust fund for the benefit of another son.

The executors transferred the funds to an investment account with the son as the annuitant and no named beneficiary.

The son subsequently misappropriated the funds for his own business.

The applicant sought payment of his entitlement and the removal of the executors.

The court found that the trust fund was never properly established and that both executors breached their fiduciary duties.

The daughter's passive reliance on her co-executor fell short of the standard of care required of an executor.

The executors were held jointly and severally liable for the dissipated funds.

The applicants were successful on an interim motion permitting the individual applicant to resume his day-to-day involvement in the parties' businesses.

The court was asked to determine the costs of the motion.

The respondents argued costs should be in the cause, while the applicants sought substantial indemnity costs payable immediately.

The court found that the respondent's conduct in unilaterally ousting the applicant without colour of right justified an order of costs in any event of the cause.

However, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing them at $23,810.59 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The applicant mother travelled to Nigeria with her two children for a holiday but was unable to return to Canada because the youngest child's Canadian passport had expired.

The respondent father, who resides in Nigeria, refused to consent to the passport renewal.

The applicant brought a motion for substituted service, leave to proceed without notice, and an order dispensing with the father's consent for the passport renewal.

The court dismissed the request for substituted service due to lack of evidence but granted leave to proceed without notice.

The court granted the applicant temporary sole custody and permission to travel with the children to Canada without the respondent's consent.

The father brought a motion for interim custody of the parties' one-year-old child, and the mother brought a cross-motion for child and spousal support.

The mother had unilaterally left the matrimonial home with the child, and the father subsequently sold the home without her consent.

The court found the mother had been the primary caregiver since birth and her departure was not a tactical maneuver, whereas the father's sale of the home prioritized his own interests.

The court ordered that the child's primary residence remain with the mother, granted the father specified parenting time, and ordered the father to pay retroactive child and spousal support.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for environmental contamination of his properties caused by dry cleaning chemicals originating from the adjacent property owned by the corporate defendant.

The individual defendant, who owned another adjacent residential property, moved for summary judgment dismissing the claims against him in negligence, nuisance, trespass, and statutory liability.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that genuine issues for trial existed because determining the individual defendant's liability required a comprehensive understanding of complex and evolving expert opinions regarding the source and migration of the contaminants, which necessitated oral testimony and cross-examination at trial.