Thomas A. Bielby

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision that dismissed their motion to stay the Ontario action in favour of proceedings in California.

The court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's finding that Ontario had a real and substantial connection to the claim and was the most appropriate forum.

The court also concluded that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of such importance to warrant granting leave.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The responding spouse brought a motion to vary an interim spousal support order that required monthly support based on an imputed income of $60,000.

The moving party argued that a suspended driver’s licence and resulting unemployment justified reducing support.

The court held that a licence suspension arising from non-payment of support does not constitute a material change in circumstances.

Given prior findings of non-disclosure and credibility concerns, the court declined to revisit the earlier imputed income determination.

The motion to vary the spousal support order was dismissed.

The applicant vendor brought an application seeking the forfeiture of a $60,000 deposit paid by the respondent purchaser under a share purchase agreement.

The agreement was conditional on the respondent obtaining releases of the applicant's personal guarantees from third-party creditors (Roynat and Pioneer).

One creditor refused to provide a full release.

The applicant argued this was a breach of covenant entitling him to the deposit, while the respondent argued it was a failure of a condition precedent.

The court held that the requirement to obtain third-party releases was a true condition precedent dependent on the will of a third party.

Because the condition could not be fulfilled, the agreement was null and void, and the deposit was ordered returned to the respondent.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Court of Justice order dismissing his motion to vary a prior family order after failing to comply with disclosure orders regarding financial information.

The lower court had struck the motion and dismissed it with costs due to repeated non‑compliance.

On appeal, the court held that the motion judge had discretion under Rule 14(23) to strike the claim relating to variation of support and found no palpable and overriding error in doing so.

However, relying on King v. Mongrain, the court held that greater caution is required when striking pleadings affecting a child’s interests.

Because the motion judge did not address the access variation request, the appeal was allowed in part and that issue was remitted to the Ontario Court of Justice.

The applicant brought an application seeking the release of a $60,000 deposit held in trust pursuant to a share purchase agreement.

The applicant argued the respondent breached a covenant by failing to obtain releases of the applicant's personal guarantees from third-party creditors.

The respondent argued the obligation was a condition precedent.

The court found that the completion of the agreement was conditional on obtaining the releases, which depended on the will of a third party.

As the condition could not be fulfilled, the agreement was declared null and void, and the deposit was ordered released to the respondent.

A self-represented family law trial addressed divorce, custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property following a long separation.

The court granted the respondent sole custody of the child, who had special needs, after finding the applicant had failed to support the child financially and had not exercised access.

Child support was fixed based on the applicant’s historical income including overtime, and additional section 7 expenses were ordered.

Limited retroactive spousal support was awarded for a defined period when the child lived with the respondent.

The court also determined the parties’ net family property values, rejected certain alleged debts, attributed value to an undisclosed foreign property interest, and ordered an equalization payment.

The respondent brought a motion seeking to enforce a consent arbitration award arising from minutes of settlement resolving family law disputes, including property and support.

The applicant sought enforcement with an added indemnity clause relating to potential tax liability arising from a pending tax appeal, or alternatively to vary or set aside the award under the Family Law Rules on the basis of mistake.

The court found the parties had failed to address a significant potential tax liability of approximately $485,000 in the settlement despite both being aware of the issue.

Applying principles of mutual and unilateral mistake, the court concluded the parties were at cross‑purposes and would not have agreed to the settlement had they understood the risk.

The arbitration award and settlement were therefore set aside and the litigation permitted to continue.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment, the court received written submissions on costs.

The successful respondent sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

Applying principles of proportionality, the court fixed the respondent's costs of the appeal at $4,534.13, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $7,500 for breach of contract.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by denying an adjournment, admitting an undisclosed document and a privileged settlement offer, intervening excessively, and misunderstanding evidence due to ill health.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors and concluding that the trial judge's credibility findings and ultimate decision were supported by the evidence.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their claim against an airline and a travel agency.

The dispute arose when the airline refused to allow the appellant to board a flight to India because his Canadian Permanent Resident permit had expired.

The airline also refused to allow his children to travel unaccompanied or with relatives without proper advance notice or notarized consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant was negligent in allowing his card to expire and that the airline acted within its authority regarding the children's travel requirements.