Thomas A. Heeney

The applicant sought to set aside a Separation Agreement executed on October 19, 2023, along with two ancillary documents (Schedule B and an Addendum), on grounds of failure to disclose significant assets, lack of understanding of the nature and consequences of the agreement, duress, lack of consensus ad idem, and unconscionability.

The court found that the respondent failed to disclose the value of his Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan as a divisible asset.

The applicant signed the agreement under economic duress, having committed to an unconditional condo purchase and needing the buyout funds to close.

The agreement was found to be unconscionable, particularly regarding the waiver of spousal support and pension claims.

The court set aside all three documents and ordered that the matter proceed to a second phase to determine equalization of net family property, spousal support, and other outstanding issues.

The parties agreed that the buyout of the matrimonial home at $600,000 would not be disturbed.

The decision addresses a motion to amend the Statement of Claim in a civil action brought by Gurupdesh Pandher against the University of Windsor and several individuals.

The court considers whether the plaintiff may add Human Rights Code claims from prior HRTO applications, the addition of new defendants, the sufficiency of defamation pleadings, the scope of misfeasance in public office, the introduction of new human rights grounds, the effect of the collective agreement and labour arbitration, the use of documents subject to the deemed or implied undertaking rule, and the pleading of matters subject to settlement privilege.

The court grants some amendments, strikes others, and provides detailed directions for further pleadings.

The court addresses the issue of "costs thrown away" following the plaintiff's successful motion to amend his Statement of Claim to add Human Rights Code claims.

The court reviews the appropriate scale for such costs, the timing of the assessment, and the quantum to be awarded.

Ultimately, the court fixes the amount of costs thrown away at $52,549, payable by the plaintiff to the defendants, and provides detailed reasons for the calculation and allocation of these costs.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a family law trial.

The applicant, Rona Elizabeth Scott, sought full recovery of her legal costs on the basis that the respondent, Thomas Ryan Scott, acted in bad faith by advancing a baseless claim that the applicant was secretly an internet porn star, which the court found to be "patently ridiculous." The court found that the applicant was successful on virtually every issue, and that the respondent's conduct met the definition of bad faith, warranting a full recovery of costs.

Costs were fixed at $57,800, payable by the respondent forthwith.

The court considered costs following a full settlement in a family law case involving decision-making, parenting time, and child support.

The applicant sought full recovery costs, arguing the final order was nearly identical to her earlier offer to settle and that the respondent acted unreasonably by not responding.

The court found the respondent had, in fact, responded with a detailed offer and that both parties had reasonable positions, with success divided on various issues.

The court determined that full indemnity costs were not warranted, and awarded the applicant $18,000 in costs, finding this amount fair and proportionate given the circumstances and the divided success.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs and the manner of payment of child support arrears following a family law trial.

The court found that the respondent, Charmaine Mohamed, was the successful party, as the applicant, Esa Hosein, was ordered to pay significant arrears of retroactive child support rather than receiving reimbursement.

The court considered the parties' conduct, including failures to make reasonable offers to settle and to provide timely financial disclosure, and ultimately ordered the applicant to pay $10,000 in costs to the respondent, subject to a deduction for a prior costs award.

The court also ordered that the arrears of child support be paid in full within 60 days, rejecting the applicant’s proposal for a payment plan.

The court considered a motion by Royal Protective Services Inc. to compel Daniella and Shawn Leis to attend examinations for discovery before other parties in a complex, multi-party action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court found that Daniella and her father were the only parties with direct knowledge of the essential facts and ordered that they be examined first, rejecting the Leis defendants' reliance on the technical order of examinations under Rule 31.04(3).

Costs were awarded to the moving party on a partial indemnity basis.

This decision resolves a high-conflict divorce proceeding between Rona Elizabeth Scott and Thomas Ryan Scott, addressing issues of parenting time, child and spousal support (both retroactive and ongoing), equalization of net family property, and related matters.

The court grants sole decision-making authority and primary residence to the applicant, orders child support based on imputed income due to the respondent's intentional unemployment, and calculates retroactive and ongoing support.

The court also addresses a complex promissory note and inheritance issue, and rejects the respondent's claims regarding alleged proceeds from a "pornographic lifestyle" as entirely lacking in merit.

The applicant sought to vary a 20-year-old interim child support order to terminate his support obligations for three children and to seek reimbursement for support paid after the children allegedly became disentitled.

The respondent opposed and sought an increase in child support retroactive to November 1, 2019.

The court found that the applicant had underpaid support for years due to not disclosing increased income, and that the respondent was entitled to retroactive support for the two remaining eligible children, calculated based on the applicant’s true available income, including retained corporate earnings.

The court fixed arrears and set out the process for determining costs and payment of arrears.

The court considered whether a person intending to make a claim against an estate for unjust enrichment, based on services rendered to the deceased, has standing to file a Notice of Objection to the granting of a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee under Rule 75.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and to seek removal of the Estate Trustee named in the will.

The court held that such a potential creditor does not have standing to file a Notice of Objection, as the category of persons with standing is limited to those whose claims turn on the outcome of a challenge to the will or the issuance of a certificate of appointment.

The Notice of Objection was ordered removed.

The decision addresses motions by the plaintiff to amend his Statement of Claim to add explicit human rights claims previously advanced before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), and to add two new defendants.

The court grants leave to amend to add the Code-related claims, finding that the amendments do not introduce new causes of action but rather new remedies arising from the same factual matrix.

The court denies leave to add new defendants, as claims against them are statute-barred.

The court also addresses costs thrown away on an abandoned injunction motion, awarding partial indemnity costs to the defendants.

The applicants sought an order for the removal of a gate obstructing a shared right-of-way and an injunction against further interference.

The respondents argued the gate was for security and brought a motion to strike parts of the applicants' affidavits.

The court granted the applicants' motion to strike scandalous allegations from the respondents' affidavits, finding them irrelevant.

The court then determined that the gate constituted a substantial interference with the applicants' right-of-way, particularly for vehicular access, and rejected the respondents' security justification as insufficient.

The court ordered the gate's removal and restrained the respondents from further obstruction.

The parties, married in 2015 and separated in 2019 with two children, resolved many issues through partial minutes of settlement.

The trial addressed remaining disputes including Easter parenting time, travel notice requirements, child support and arrears (specifically imputation of income for rent-free accommodation), Section 7 expenses, Facetime/phone contact with children, children's birthdays, parent birthdays, and counselling for the children.

The court made specific orders on each of these issues, notably imputing income to the applicant for rent-free housing and ordering a psychological assessment for one child due to concerning behavioral incidents.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful application for interim guardianship of property for an incapable adult.

The applicant, Brenda Myers, sought full indemnity costs, while the responding party, Tereasa Muscedere (the incapable adult's mother), opposed the costs award, claiming impecuniosity and excessive costs.

The court found Tereasa's opposition to the guardianship application unreasonable and ordered her to pay partial indemnity costs to Brenda Myers and s. 3 counsel for the incapable adult.

The balance of Brenda Myers' and s. 3 counsel's costs, and the Public Guardian and Trustee's full indemnity costs, were ordered to be paid from the incapable adult's property, with a portion of the PGT's costs adjourned to the passing of accounts.

This motion concerned a dispute between two defendant insurers, Pafco Insurance Company and Kent and Essex Mutual Insurance Company, regarding Kent's obligation to contribute to a $950,000 settlement paid by Pafco.

The settlement satisfied claims made by the plaintiffs under the OPCF 44R Family Protection Coverage endorsement, following the death of Ashley Kerr in a car accident caused by an uninsured motorist.

The central issue was whether Ashley Kerr qualified as an "insured person" under Joe Hesch's (her common-law spouse) 44R policy with Kent, which would trigger Kent's contribution.

The court found that Ashley did not meet the definition of an "insured person" under Joe's policy because she owned the "other automobile" she was occupying at the time of the accident, an exclusion explicitly stated in the 44R endorsement and reinforced by the OAP 1 policy.

Consequently, Kent was not obligated to contribute to the settlement.

The court also granted Pafco a subrogated judgment against the at-fault uninsured motorist.

The Superior Court of Justice heard motions and cross-motions arising from four identical actions.

The primary motion was brought by the plaintiffs' lawyers (the "Lawyers") to strike counterclaims asserted against them by the defendants by counterclaim (the "Lenders").

The Lenders' counterclaims alleged conspiracy, intentional interference with economic relations, and champerty and maintenance, and they sought to add a new claim for breach of privacy/misappropriation of confidential information.

The court dismissed the Lenders' motion for leave to tender evidence and granted the Lawyers' motion, striking the counterclaims in their entirety without leave to amend, finding that the claims against the Lawyers were untenable at law and contrary to public policy.

The applicant sought to vary a child support order retroactively to 2017, alleging the respondent had undeclared income and had ceased payments.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the respondent's increased income but rejected the imputation of "under the table" income due to lack of objective evidence.

Applying the D.B.S. factors, the court ordered the child support order varied retroactively to February 1, 2018, when the respondent stopped making payments, rather than the applicant's requested 2017, based on the lack of reasonable excuse for delay and the child's needs being met.

Arrears were calculated and a payment plan was set.

This endorsement resolves two costs issues.

First, the plaintiffs' successful motion to amend their claim to $200,000, bringing it within the simplified procedure due to the death of a plaintiff.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $5,000 in partial indemnity costs for this motion, finding it was not an "indulgence" and that the defendants' opposition was unsuccessful.

Second, the defendants' claim for costs under Rule 76.13, which applies when a claim is amended to simplified procedure.

The court found the plaintiffs' delay in bringing the amendment relevant to these costs.

While acknowledging some costs were unnecessarily incurred by the defendants in preparing for an ordinary trial, the court significantly reduced the defendants' claimed amount for witness preparation, deeming it excessive and disproportionate.

Ultimately, the court awarded the defendants $8,000 under Rule 76.13, resulting in a net award of $3,000 to the defendants, payable within 90 days.

The accused, Jeremiah Andre Reed, was charged with attempted murder (stabbing Grant Douglas) and breach of a probation order (possessing a weapon).

The Crown's case relied primarily on the complainant's testimony, which the court found credible and reliable despite minor inconsistencies and a criminal record, due to strong corroborating evidence and the complainant's direct involvement in the events.

The court found the identification of the accused to be highly reliable given the complainant's prior acquaintance with him and the circumstances of the attack and subsequent pursuit.

Direct evidence of the accused's intent to kill was found in his own words.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for an injunction to prevent the defendants from obstructing their access to Lake Erie, asserting rights under the Canadian Navigable Waters Act (CNWA) and common law riparian rights.

They also claimed damages for trespass.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief, finding they lacked standing to enforce the CNWA and that their property did not directly abut Lake Erie in its natural low-water state.

However, the court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the trespass claim, awarding $5,000 in damages for the unauthorized clearing of trees and vegetation on their land by the defendants.

The defendants' counterclaim for trespass was not adjudicated due to procedural issues.