The Honourable Mr. Justice R. J. Nightingale

The defendant driver brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff passenger's action and the co-defendants' cross-claim against him following a motor vehicle collision.

The moving party argued the co-defendant lost control of his vehicle on a snow-covered highway and crossed into the moving party's lane on an on-ramp.

The co-defendant argued the collision occurred in the highway's right lane during a merge.

Applying the summary judgment framework, the court weighed the evidence, including independent witness testimony and accident reconstruction evidence, and found the moving party's version of events reliable.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the moving party's liability and dismissed the claims against him.

The defendants, a licensed service provider and its owner, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff employee's statement of claim.

The plaintiff alleged she was assaulted by a minor resident at the defendants' group home and claimed damages for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The defendants argued they owed no duty of care to the plaintiff because their paramount statutory duty was to the child.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that the employer owed no common law duty of care to provide a safe workplace for its employee, and that such a duty would not necessarily conflict with its statutory duty to the child.

The applicant, the common-law spouse of the deceased, sought a declaration of an equal interest in their shared home via constructive trust, and dependency support under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court granted the constructive trust claim, finding the applicant made significant financial contributions to the home's purchase and upkeep, establishing unjust enrichment.

However, the court dismissed the dependency support claim, ruling it was barred by the six-month limitation period and that the property had already vested in the respondent under the Estates Administration Act.

A subcontractor sued a municipality after being required to remove and replace unapproved streetlight poles installed on a municipal highway project.

The court held there was no contract between the municipality and the subcontractor, no duty of good faith or honest performance owed by the municipality, and no basis to recognize a new duty of care in tort in the tendering context.

Applying the unlawful means tort framework, the court found the municipality merely insisted that its general contractor comply with the tender specifications and did not use unlawful means or intend to cause economic harm.

The action was dismissed, and the court further found the alleged damages were unsupported by reliable evidence.

On a motion to change, the applicant sought to set aside or vary spousal support terms in a self-drafted separation agreement filed for enforcement under the Family Law Act.

The court held that the support provisions produced unconscionable circumstances, the payor was in breach when the application was commenced, and the recipient remained a disabled and financially dependent former common-law spouse living in poverty.

Applying the statutory framework and consulting the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court found the agreed duration was clearly inadequate and ordered ongoing support of $2,000 per month for four additional years together with continued extended health, dental, and life insurance benefits.

The order was made prospectively from May 1, 2015.