Theresa Maddalena

During the COVID-19 suspension of regular court operations, the respondent father brought an urgent contempt motion alleging the applicant mother denied him access to their child.

The court, acting as a triage judge, determined that the matter was not urgent according to the specific criteria outlined in the March 15, 2020, and April 7, 2020, Notices to the Profession, which explicitly excluded contempt motions from urgent hearings.

The court emphasized that parents must continue to follow existing court orders and warned against unilateral amendments, adjourning the contempt motion to a future date when normal operations were expected to resume.

The applicant brought a motion to vary existing access orders and requested a police enforcement clause, seeking access in his home instead of the current in-and-out arrangement in the matrimonial home.

The matter was referred to a triage judge under the COVID-19 protocol to determine urgency.

The court found the matter was not urgent, as the children's safety was not at risk.

The judge emphasized that parents should prioritize the children's best interests, follow Health Canada safety protocols, and avoid litigation during the pandemic.

The applicant's past actions regarding COVID-19 recommendations raised legitimate concerns for the respondent.

The motion was dismissed as not urgent.

This endorsement addresses a dispute over the date of separation for the purposes of the Family Law Act, which directly impacted the applicant wife's claim for equalization of net family property.

The applicant argued for an April 2014 separation date, while the respondent husband claimed January 2012, which would have rendered the equalization claim statute-barred.

The court meticulously reviewed documentary evidence and corroborating affidavits, including income tax returns, CPP correspondence, matrimonial home arrangements, social activities, and bill payments.

The respondent's assertion of a confidential separation agreement was found incredible due to a lack of supporting evidence.

The court ultimately concluded that the date of separation was April 2014, consistent with the applicant's position.

This endorsement addresses costs following a successful summary judgment motion in a family law proceeding.

The court applied Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules and the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, as articulated in Beaver v. Hill.

It considered the conduct of both parties, including the applicant's drug relapse, departure from the province, and non-cooperation with disclosure, as well as the respondent's impaired driving conviction which prolonged litigation.

The court awarded the respondent $18,000 in all-inclusive costs, with $3,000 designated as enforceable child support.

The applicant's contempt motion against the respondent was dismissed.

The court found the respondent's actions regarding missed access were due to concerns for the child's well-being, not contempt.

As the successful party, the respondent was awarded substantial indemnity costs, fixed at $8,857, payable by the applicant.

The applicant's claim for costs was dismissed.

The applicant sought costs following a 13-day family law trial.

The court found the applicant to be the successful party on several key issues, including the date of cohabitation, the validity of the Maher, and the Kevin Drive property.

The respondent's conduct regarding the Kevin Drive property, which involved transferring and selling it without the applicant's knowledge or consent, was deemed bad faith and a clear attempt to defraud the applicant of her rightful equalization payment.

While none of the parties' offers to settle met the criteria under Family Law Rule 18(14) for special consideration, the court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs, emphasizing the need to deter such egregious conduct, while still applying principles of fairness and reasonableness.

The respondent's claim for costs was dismissed.

This motion endorsement addresses two motions: one by 1746878 Ontario Inc. to stay a finding of contempt against it, and an oral cross-motion by Pollard Windows Inc. alleging continued contempt by Andrew Ferri.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried as 1746878 Ontario Inc. had previously admitted contempt.

The court also found no irreparable harm.

Consequently, the motion to stay the contempt finding was dismissed.

The court further dismissed Pollard Windows Inc.'s oral motion, clarifying that the prior order against Andrew Ferri precluded him from participating in proceedings but not from acting as a director of 1746878 Ontario Inc.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims, rescind an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS), and recover a $5,000 deposit.

The dispute arose from the plaintiffs' alleged failure to disclose a license agreement with Trillium Railway Co. Ltd. for a 17-foot strip of land, which included significant property improvements, prior to the execution of the APS.

The plaintiffs asserted they disclosed this information before the APS, while the defendants claimed they learned of it much later.

Applying the Hryniak v. Mauldin framework, the court weighed the evidence, including email communications and party conduct, and found the plaintiffs' claim of early disclosure not credible.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs' failure to disclose the Trillium agreement constituted deliberate misrepresentation, entitling the defendants to rescind the APS.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims, terminating the APS, and ordering the return of the deposit with interest.

The defendant moved to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) obtained ex parte by the plaintiffs on property located at 4684 Bartlett Road, Beamsville, Ontario.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts in their ex parte application, including prior construction lien proceedings, the non-perfection of the lien, and misleading statements about payment for the property.

The court also determined that the plaintiffs' claim was for liquidated damages under a construction contract, not a triable issue regarding an "interest in land" required for a CPL.

Consequently, the CPL was discharged due to non-disclosure and the absence of a valid interest in land claim.

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity basis following a successful summary judgment motion, requesting $28,339.41.

The defendant conceded entitlement to partial indemnity costs but proposed $7,500, arguing for divided success as the plaintiff did not succeed on all claims (aggravated damages, vacation pay) and the final award of $33,098.44 was close to the defendant's settlement offer.

The court found mixed success, noting the plaintiff was awarded 8 months' pay in lieu of notice (instead of 11 months sought), inclusion of a bonus, no vacation entitlement, and dismissal of punitive damages.

Considering the mixed success and the parties' offers to settle, the court fixed costs payable by the defendant to the plaintiff at $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff, Richelle Milloy, was the successful party in a 10-day trial and sought partial indemnity costs of $79,517.59.

The defendant, Complex Services Inc., argued that the plaintiff recovered less than one-third of the claimed damages and that costs should be proportionate to the award, proposing $20,000 plus disbursements and HST (approx. $26,134).

The court, applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles from Boucher and Zesta Engineering, noted the plaintiff's bill lacked detail, the case was of average complexity, and the litigation, initially ordinary procedure, continued under simplified procedure with a recovery of $32,137.18.

The court also discounted costs for a plaintiff's motion at trial and found the 210 hours spent on litigation excessive given the recovery.

Ultimately, the court fixed costs payable by the defendant to the plaintiff at $30,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

This trial judgment addresses various family law issues following a marital separation, including spousal and child support, the valuation of a corporate interest, and an oppression remedy claim.

The court found the respondent's financial disclosure and credibility severely lacking, leading to adverse inferences regarding his income.

The respondent's income for support purposes was imputed by disregarding corporate losses that primarily served his personal lifestyle.

The applicant's claim for an oppression remedy was dismissed on procedural grounds due to prior partial minutes of settlement that did not list it as an outstanding issue.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a long motion heard on April 7, 2017, concerning spousal support.

The respondent, Eileen Ruth Watson, sought costs of $7,460.83, while the applicant, Roger William Watson, who was self-represented, requested dismissal of the costs submissions due to late filing or, alternatively, a fixed amount of $1,750.

The court exercised its discretion to allow the late filing, found the respondent to be the successful party, and considered factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, including the importance of the issue and the applicant's unreasonable position.

The court fixed the costs payable by the applicant to the respondent at $6,000.00 all inclusive.

This endorsement addresses the costs of an unsuccessful summary judgment motion brought by the defendant Andrew Ferri seeking dismissal of the plaintiff's claim.

The motion was dismissed, making the plaintiff the successful party.

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity basis, while the defendant argued costs should be deferred to the trial judge.

The court, applying Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the plaintiff was entitled to costs.

Considering the factors, including the defendant's self-representation but prior legal counsel, the court fixed costs at $9,688.42, inclusive of disbursements and HST, to be paid by Andrew Ferri to the plaintiff within 30 days.

This decision addresses two cross-applications concerning the validity of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for real property.

The court found no consensus ad idem between the parties due to uninitialed amendments made by the purchaser and differing interpretations of material terms, particularly regarding kitchen cabinetry suppliers.

Consequently, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale was declared null and void, the purchaser's request for specific performance was dismissed, and the vendor's request for an injunction against encumbrance was implicitly granted by ordering the discharge of the Certificate of Pending Litigation.

The vendor was ordered to return the deposit with interest.

This is a wrongful dismissal action where both parties agreed to proceed by way of summary judgment to determine the period of reasonable notice and the calculation of damages.

The plaintiff sought 9 to 12 months' notice and aggravated damages, while the defendant proposed a notice period not exceeding 7.5 months and disputed aggravated damages.

The court determined an 8-month notice period was appropriate based on the Bardal factors, and calculated damages for salary, health care benefits, pension, and a bonus.

The claim for vacation pay and aggravated damages was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a former table games dealer, sued for wrongful dismissal after her employment was terminated due to a permanent shoulder injury.

The defendant employer argued frustration of contract, having provided modified duties for over two years.

The court found that the employer's failure to offer alternative suitable positions within the organization, despite the employee's qualifications and exemplary record, constituted 'self-induced frustration' and prevented the employer from relying on the doctrine of frustration of contract.

The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, awarding damages for wrongful dismissal based on common-law reasonable notice.

In a garnishment hearing, the applicant sought the release of $73,160.84 from funds paid into court by the respondent, representing spousal support arrears due to unindexed payments and the respondent's unilateral reduction of support.

The respondent argued for a smaller payout of $14,432.75, citing alleged overpayments.

The court affirmed the principle that separation agreements are binding until varied by court order or new agreement, and unilateral variations are not permissible.

It ordered the full amount requested by the applicant to be paid out, with the remaining funds held in court pending the respondent's motion to vary the spousal support order.

The respondent brought a motion for temporary ongoing and retroactive spousal support.

The applicant opposed this, and his own motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home was withdrawn.

The court found the respondent had a clear need for support due to a 28-year traditional marriage and diligent efforts to achieve self-sufficiency post-separation, while the applicant had the ability to pay.

The court ordered no support for 2015 due to similar incomes, but ordered the applicant to pay $2,200 per month for 2016 and $3,000 per month commencing January 1, 2017, onwards.

A support deduction order was to issue, and parties were directed to make written costs submissions.

The defendant, Andrew Ferri, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the plaintiff's claim.

Ferri argued that the plaintiff corporation's representative lacked authority to commence the action, alleging that the true principal shareholder had not authorized it and that a key affidavit was forged or obtained through misrepresentation.

The plaintiff, 1238915 Ontario Limited, contended that there were significant triable issues and credibility disputes.

The court found numerous genuine issues requiring a trial, including allegations of forgery and misrepresentation, which could not be resolved on a summary judgment motion.

Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed.