Sylvia Corthorn

The applicants, estate trustees, sought directions and rectification regarding the deceased's Primary and Limited Wills.

The court struck portions of an affidavit for failing to identify the source of information and belief, but granted relief from strict compliance for another affidavit.

The court found it unnecessary to rectify the Primary Will, as the two wills could be read harmoniously to exclude the Limited Will's assets from the Primary Will.

The court rectified a typographical error in the Limited Will and directed the applicants to pursue their request for a limited certificate of appointment in the original probate proceeding.

The respondent father brought a motion to change his child support obligations, relying on a reduction in income, the child's graduation, and an alleged verbal agreement.

During the hearing, the court noted significant gaps in the father's evidence regarding his employment, income, and the alleged agreement.

Despite the court offering an adjournment to allow the father to file additional evidence, he declined.

However, because the parties had not clearly articulated the specific relief requested, including the effective dates and calculations for imputed income, the court adjourned the motion to a full-day hearing to ensure the matter could be properly completed.

Following a lengthy criminal trial involving four complainants, the court applied the W.(D.) framework and convicted the accused on multiple counts of sexual assault, choking to enable sexual assault, sexual assault causing bodily harm, and uttering threats, while acquitting on other counts where the Crown conceded insufficiency or the evidence left a reasonable doubt.

The decision turned largely on credibility and reliability assessments, including the accused’s internally inconsistent testimony, misunderstanding of legally valid consent, and the court’s acceptance of three complainants’ detailed accounts despite delayed reporting and histories of crack cocaine addiction.

The court held that drug addiction, without expert evidence, did not justify speculative assumptions undermining testimonial reliability.

The court also reviewed the law of consent, honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent, and similar fact evidence, concluding that similar fact evidence was unnecessary but would in any event have reinforced the guilty findings on the proven counts.

The accused was charged with multiple sexual offences, including sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and indecent exposure, relating to four complainants: his former partner, her daughter, her friend, and the friend's daughter.

The court carefully assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainants' testimony, noting numerous inconsistencies, contradictions, and memory issues, particularly regarding the specific details and timelines of the alleged incidents.

Finding that the evidence of the complainants was fraught with frailties that raised a reasonable doubt, the court acquitted the accused on all charges.

Following a successful appeal by the defendant, the trial judge determined the scale and quantum of the defendant's trial costs.

The court found that the plaintiff attempted to perpetrate a fraud on the court by presenting a forged will and misleading evidence.

Consequently, the court awarded the defendant trial costs on a full indemnity basis, fixed at $64,985.54, payable by the plaintiff or alternatively by the estate.

The respondent mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, sole parenting time, a no-contact order against the respondent father, and permission to obtain a passport and travel internationally with their child without the father's consent.

The father did not respond to the claims and did not participate in the uncontested trial.

The court found that the father had a history of criminal behaviour, physical violence, and verbal abuse, and had been largely absent from the child's life.

The court granted the mother's requests, including a no-contact order, finding it in the child's best interests.

The plaintiff corporation brought an action for damages against the defendants.

The sole director of the plaintiff corporation brought a motion for leave to represent the corporation pursuant to Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court reviewed the factors for granting leave, noting the applicant's shortcomings as a litigant and the lack of documentary evidence regarding the corporation's internal structure and financial situation.

The motion was dismissed, but the applicant was granted leave to bring the motion again on a further and better record.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants for breach of loan and general security agreements, seeking to repossess farm equipment.

The defendants did not defend the action or attend the motion.

The plaintiff sought an interim order prohibiting the defendants from disposing of or encumbering the equipment while the decision on default judgment was under reserve.

The court granted the interim order, finding the plaintiff had a reasonable basis for concern that the equipment might be alienated or hidden.

In an uncontested divorce trial, the applicant sought sole decision-making authority, primary residence, child support, and international travel rights regarding the parties' three-year-old child.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making and primary residence, ordering that the respondent's parenting time be at the applicant's discretion due to his mental health issues.

The court imputed income to the respondent for periods of unemployment, fixing child support arrears at $29,099.00 and ongoing support at $745.00 per month.

The applicant was also granted the right to travel internationally with the child without the respondent's consent, and awarded $4,000 in costs.

The respondent father brought a motion to reduce his child support obligations, citing a reduction in income and the child's graduation from high school.

The father repeatedly failed to file the necessary financial disclosure and evidence required by previous court orders.

Despite his non-compliance, the court adjourned the motion one final time to allow him to file the requisite evidence, noting that dismissing the motion would unfairly require the self-represented mother to respond to a new motion to change.

The applicant, who is not the biological father of the respondent's child, brought an urgent motion for interim contact pending a final determination of whether he is a 'parent' under the Family Law Act.

The respondent opposed the motion, seeking to end all contact.

The court applied the best interests of the child factors under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act and found that the applicant did not meet his onus to establish that ongoing interim contact was in the child's best interests.

The court ordered two final supervised visits to gradually phase out contact, after which there would be no further contact pending the final determination of the application.

The applicants, minor children of the deceased, brought a motion for an interim preservation order requiring the deceased's estranged spouse to pay $25,000 in life insurance proceeds into court pending the determination of their dependant support application.

The court applied the three-part test for interim preservation under Rule 45.02 and found the applicants established a strong prima facie case that the estate assets were inadequate for their support.

The motion was granted, and the respondent was ordered to pay the funds into court and pay costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to her failure to respond.

In a child protection proceeding involving four children, a non-party community member brought a motion to be added as a party to put forward a plan of care.

The Children's Aid Society did not consent but did not oppose the motion.

Applying the five-part test from Highland Shores CAS, the court found that the non-party had a legal interest, was capable of putting forward a plan of care, and that her addition was necessary to determine the issues and in the children's best interests.

The motion was granted and the non-party was added as a respondent.

The applicant paternal grandmother sought contact with her grandson.

The respondent mother agreed to a gradual resumption of contact, while the respondent father supported the application but did not otherwise participate.

The father had previously commenced a divorce proceeding in Perth, which automatically stayed the grandmother's application under s. 27 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court lifted the stay, finding no bad faith, prejudice to the mother if the stay remained, and a waste of court resources if the matters were not dealt with together.

A consent order for grandparent contact was issued, and the mother's claims against the father were directed to an uncontested trial.

Following a successful motion regarding parenting time and child support, the applicant sought costs of $6,020.64.

The respondent argued financial hardship.

The court considered the respondent's litigation conduct, offers to settle, and the reasonableness of the fees incurred.

The court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $5,000 at a rate of $100 per month, enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant property owner brought a motion for leave to amend its notice of application regarding a disputed agreement of purchase and sale.

The proposed amendments sought to add a fixed closing date and to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) that the respondent developer had obtained in a separate action.

The court granted leave to add the fixed closing date, as the respondent alleged no prejudice.

However, the court refused leave to add the request to discharge the CPL, finding that the proposed amendment failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and constituted an improper collateral attack on an order made in a separate proceeding.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of a settlement reached on behalf of six minor grandchildren regarding claims arising from a fatal motor vehicle collision involving their grandparents.

The claims were made pursuant to s. 61 of the Family Law Act.

The court found the settlement, which allocated $18,168.15 net to each minor plaintiff, to be in their best interests and approved it.

The court also approved the solicitor-client account, ordered substituted service on the defendant estate's insurer, and granted leave to amend the title of proceeding to correct a misnomer.

The applicant brought a motion for interim relief regarding parenting time, child support, and life insurance.

The respondent, who was self-represented and had not filed responding materials, requested an adjournment, which the court denied due to delay and lack of prejudice.

The court maintained the status quo for parenting time exchanges and ordered the respondent to disclose his life insurance details.

For child support, the court included the respondent's CERB and RRSP income in his 2020 income, setting child support at $478 per month and ordering the payment of arrears.

The defendant brought a motion to adjourn the pre-trial conference and trial of a motor vehicle accident action.

The plaintiffs had served several expert reports, including a new economic loss report and a biomechanics report, shortly before the deadline and trial date.

The defendant argued that additional time was required to obtain responding expert reports, conduct further defence medical examinations, and pursue documentary discovery from non-parties.

The court granted the adjournment, finding that the prejudice to the defendant in proceeding to trial without the opportunity to fully defend the claims outweighed the prejudice to the plaintiffs caused by the delay.

The applicant sought the removal of the respondents as trustees of a family trust, alleging mismanagement, failure to account, and bad faith.

The trustees had made over $3 million in undocumented, unsecured loans to themselves and their children, failed to pass accounts for over a decade, and attempted to dictate the terms of the applicant's will in exchange for continuing his monthly trust payments.

The court found that the trustees' conduct was so unreasonable that no honest or fair-dealing trustee would have acted in that way, and that they failed to act impartially despite having absolute discretion.

The application was granted, the trustees were removed, and an institutional trustee was appointed in their place.