Sylvia Corthorn

The plaintiff sued for damages arising from altercations with security guards.

Shortly before the jury trial commenced, the defendants conducted surveillance on the plaintiff and disclosed the video and report to the plaintiff's counsel.

During the trial, the defendants sought to use the surveillance as substantive evidence or for impeachment.

The plaintiff argued the evidence should be excluded due to late disclosure.

The court held that the defendants required leave to introduce the evidence under Rule 48.04, as the matter had been set down for trial.

The court declined to exclude the evidence outright, finding it relevant and material, but granted the plaintiff a 1.5-day adjournment to review the footage and prepare.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking reinstatement of access to the parties’ two children after the respondent father unilaterally terminated the existing alternating-week parenting schedule following service of the application for custody and support.

The court found that the prior arrangement, which had operated for approximately 15 months, constituted the status quo and that no compelling reasons had been established to justify altering it.

The father’s unilateral restriction of the mother’s access was found to stem from an erroneous belief that he could control the children’s access and from a reaction to the litigation.

Applying principles from interim custody jurisprudence, the court held that compelling reasons are required to disturb the status quo on an interim motion and that shared parenting should be encouraged where feasible.

Access was therefore reinstated gradually, returning the parties to the previous alternating week schedule.

Following dismissal of preliminary motions seeking leave to amend pleadings and adjourn trial, the court was required to fix the quantum of costs previously awarded on a substantial indemnity basis.

The moving parties argued that costs should instead be assessed on a partial indemnity basis and that costs for an earlier adjournment appearance before another judge should be included.

The court held that the scale of costs could not be reconsidered absent an appeal and that costs related to the earlier appearance remained to be determined later.

The court fixed substantial indemnity costs payable to the responding parties for preparation and attendance on the motions.

Payment was ordered within 30 days pursuant to rule 57.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant sought to enforce an arbitration award against the respondents by way of an application.

The court previously converted the application into an action because material facts were in dispute, and directed the parties to make written submissions on costs for the preliminary motion.

The court denied costs to both parties.

The applicant was denied costs because it should have known an application was inappropriate given the disputed facts.

The respondents were denied costs due to egregious deficiencies in their responding affidavit and delays in satisfying undertakings.

The respondent landlord was successful on a motion to quash the tenant's appeal from an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The landlord sought costs of the motion.

The court awarded costs to the landlord on a substantial indemnity basis, noting the appeal manifestly lacked substance and the tenant's conduct prevented the landlord from selling or living in the property.

Costs were fixed at $1,289.45.

Costs decision following a motion for directions in a guardianship application under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The applicant sought inclusion of production terms requiring disclosure of medical records and a lawyer’s file relating to powers of attorney executed by the applicant’s mother.

The court had previously refused to include those production terms in the order for directions.

On the issue of costs, the court held that the motion proceeded unnecessarily due to the applicant’s insistence on the disputed production terms and that the respondents had been prepared to consent to the remaining terms.

Partial indemnity costs were therefore awarded to two respondents, with reductions applied to the amounts claimed as excessive.

The applicant, a former step-parent, brought a contempt motion alleging the biological father failed to comply with a temporary access order granting the applicant access to his former step‑children.

The court reviewed multiple missed or rescheduled visits and the parties’ communications following the order.

Applying the three‑part contempt test, the court held the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the father deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the order.

The court emphasized that contempt in family proceedings is a remedy of last resort and found the applicant should have pursued enforcement or case conference remedies instead.

The contempt motion was dismissed and no costs were awarded.

During a consolidated family corporate dispute involving multiple related actions and a counterclaim, the moving parties sought leave at the outset of trial to amend their pleadings and requested an adjournment of the trials.

The proposed amendments largely consisted of legal arguments relating to whether the plaintiff’s oppression remedy claim should instead proceed as a derivative action under the Business Corporations Act.

The court held that the motion lacked evidentiary support, was brought far too late in a case‑managed proceeding, and raised arguments that did not require pleading amendments.

The court also refused the requested adjournment, finding the moving parties had failed to pursue procedural remedies earlier regarding outstanding undertakings and trial scheduling concerns.

All motions were dismissed and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the responding parties.

The applicant sought to enforce a 2013 arbitration award against individual respondents associated with a dissolved corporation that had been the party to the arbitration.

The applicant argued that the arbitration clause bound administrators or assigns, that the corporate veil should be pierced, and that personal liability or oppression remedies justified enforcement against the individuals.

The court held that enforcement proceedings under the Arbitration Act are limited to enforcing the award itself and do not authorize determining new liability against non‑parties to the arbitration.

Because resolving the applicant’s claims would require complex factual and legal determinations, including corporate veil and oppression issues, the matter could not proceed by application.

The court ordered that the claim proceed by way of an action.

The respondent brought an unopposed motion seeking to dismiss an application for delay in relation to a 2009 proceeding in which the applicant sought declaratory relief regarding an alleged interest in currency seized by the Canada Border Services Agency.

The court found procedural deficiencies in the moving materials under Rule 37.12.1(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the failure to file a draft order and properly serve required documents.

The court also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to dismiss an application for delay because the Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide such relief.

Instead, the Rules provide mechanisms for treating applications as abandoned under Rule 38.08.

The motion was therefore dismissed without prejudice to the respondent bringing a motion to have the application deemed abandoned or taking other procedural steps.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order based on rent arrears.

The tenant argued the Board breached procedural fairness and the Human Rights Code by failing to accommodate his cognitive health.

The Divisional Court found the tenant's grounds of appeal did not raise a question of law and were entirely devoid of merit.

The motion was granted and the appeal was quashed.

The applicant sought relief concerning an arbitration agreement and prior separation agreements, requesting that an ongoing arbitration be converted into a Superior Court proceeding or alternatively that the court appoint a replacement arbitrator after the original arbitrator’s death.

The parties submitted minutes of settlement and a draft consent order.

The court held that the Arbitration Act limits judicial intervention in matters subject to arbitration and that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, including incorporating the settlement terms into a court order.

The parties had already reached minutes of settlement and could execute an amending agreement privately.

The court therefore declined to make any order while noting that the parties could return for appointment of a replacement arbitrator if necessary.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant’s statement of defence and sought default judgment and additional production relating to affidavits of service.

The defendant, self‑represented and residing in Florida, had twice delivered pleadings that failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 25.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the seven‑line defence was wholly deficient and demonstrated disregard for prior court directions and procedural rules.

The pleading was struck without leave to amend as an abuse of process under Rule 25.11.

However, the court declined to grant default judgment at that stage and refused the request for disclosure of the commissioners of affidavits of service.

The applicant sought an Order for Directions in an application challenging powers of attorney executed by his mother and seeking to replace the appointed attorneys for property and personal care.

The parties agreed to most procedural directions, including a capacity assessment, but disputed proposed terms requiring automatic production of extensive medical records and a lawyer’s file if incapacity were later found.

The court held the proposed production terms were premature, overly broad, and procedurally improper because non‑parties affected by the order had not been served.

The court emphasized the distinctions in the Substitute Decisions Act between capacity to grant powers of attorney and incapacity to manage property or personal care.

The contested production terms were refused and directions were issued for capacity assessments and procedural steps in the application.

A condominium corporation brought an application under s. 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998 seeking a compliance order against a unit owner who failed to maintain his unit and refused to prepare it for pest control treatment despite a bed bug infestation and excessive clutter creating health and safety concerns.

The court found the owner breached multiple statutory obligations under the Act and the condominium declaration, including duties to maintain the unit and to avoid dangerous conditions likely to cause damage or injury.

The court ordered the owner to prepare the unit for pest control treatment and authorized the corporation to enter the unit and carry out preparation and treatment if the owner failed to comply within 30 days.

Costs and remediation expenses were ordered recoverable as common expenses payable by the owner.