Thomas J. Carey

The applicant, Shelley Jacob, brought a motion to vary spousal and child support orders from a 2010 consent order.

The court found that the child of the marriage ceased to be self-supporting as of June 2014, constituting a material change in circumstances.

The court increased spousal support retroactively and on a go-forward basis, applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and considering the tax implications of retroactive support.

Child support was terminated retroactively.

The respondent was also ordered to transfer ownership of a term life insurance policy and designate the applicant as an irrevocable beneficiary of his group life insurance.

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with an excessive blood alcohol concentration, arguing that the trial judge erred by allowing the Crown an adjournment to call a toxicologist in reply to defence evidence of bolus drinking, thereby improperly splitting its case.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly permitted the Crown to call reply evidence.

The court found that the Crown was legitimately surprised by the defence's bolus drinking evidence, which was not anticipated from the initial alcohol influence report.

This evidence was deemed proper reply, not case-splitting, and the appellant suffered no prejudice as he was afforded an opportunity for surrebuttal.

The defendant, owner of the Ambassador Bridge, brought a motion to strike the jury notice in a nuisance action commenced by property owners in Old Sandwich Town.

The plaintiffs claimed the defendant unlawfully allowed properties it purchased to deteriorate, reducing property values.

The defendant argued that widespread negative, defamatory, and accusatory pre-trial publicity in Windsor regarding its conduct and motives made it impossible to find an impartial jury.

The court agreed, finding a real danger that the cumulative effect of over a decade of negative commentary could predispose jurors against the defendant.

The motion was granted and the jury notice was struck.

The defendant brought a motion to strike out or stay the plaintiffs' claim due to the plaintiffs' failure to pay outstanding costs orders from an unsuccessful summary judgment application.

The plaintiffs admitted default but claimed impecuniosity.

The court dismissed the motion without costs, finding that the plaintiffs were genuinely without funds, the previous motion was not frivolous, and the defendants failed to show prejudice.

The plaintiffs moved for default judgment against the defendants for breach of a contract to install roof-mounted solar panels.

The defendants failed to respond to the claim.

The court found that the defendants acted fraudulently by taking the plaintiffs' deposit money and depriving them of expected profits.

The court pierced the corporate veil, holding the individual operating mind jointly liable with the corporate entities.

Default judgment was granted for breach of contract and punitive damages, with a declaration that the judgment survives any bankruptcy.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal which was dismissed.

The successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $10,000, while the plaintiffs suggested $5,000 was appropriate given the motion was in writing.

The court fixed costs at $6,500 payable forthwith, considering the costs awarded on the underlying contempt motion and the merits of the leave application.

The defendants were successful on a motion for leave to appeal brought by the plaintiffs in a class proceeding.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $10,000, while the plaintiffs suggested $5,000 was appropriate given the motion was in writing.

The court fixed costs at $6,500 payable forthwith, considering the costs awarded on the underlying contempt motion and the merits of the leave application.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer argued the plaintiffs failed to comply with policy conditions requiring timely notice and corroboration of an unidentified motorist.

The plaintiff driver claimed her memory of an oncoming vehicle causing the crash returned gradually after suffering severe injuries and hallucinations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's credibility, recovered memory, and potential entitlement to relief from forfeiture under section 129 of the Insurance Act were genuine issues requiring a full trial.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was an abuse of process, and was statute-barred.

The plaintiffs had previously commenced an identical action regarding a terminated bingo hall lease on First Nation reserve lands, which was dismissed for delay.

The court agreed with the defendants, finding the second action was an abuse of process attempting to re-litigate the dismissed claims.

The court also held the lease was void ab initio under the Indian Act and the claims were subject to the two-year limitation period.

The motion to strike was granted without leave to amend.

The parties were unable to agree on costs following a two-hour motion.

The court noted that the responding party's submissions suffered from hyperbole and caused unnecessary rancour, while the moving parties' costs request was wildly excessive and unsubstantiated.

The court fixed costs at $5,000 in the cause.

This decision addresses the costs of an estate dispute where the applicants, two sisters, unsuccessfully challenged their father's final will, alleging undue influence by their brother.

The court reiterated the "loser pays" principle in estate litigation, finding no public policy grounds to deviate or have the estate bear the costs.

The court was critical of the applicants' persistent and personal attacks, noting their conduct prolonged an unnecessary and bitter trial.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend its statement of claim to add a related numbered company as a defendant.

The defendants opposed, arguing prejudice and noting the plaintiff failed to request leave under Rule 48.04.

The court granted the motion, finding the failure to request leave was a technical defect that could be remedied.

The court noted the defendants and their counsel appeared to be engaged in a game of 'catch us if you can' regarding the complex ownership of the property where the materials were supplied, and found no prejudice in allowing the amendment.

The plaintiffs in two class action proceedings sought leave to appeal a case management judge's dismissal of their motion for contempt.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant municipality breached a court order limiting communication with class members during the opt-out period.

The court denied leave to appeal, finding that the case management judge correctly applied the test for civil contempt, reasonably concluded the order was subject to multiple interpretations, and that there was no conflicting case law or good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision.

The plaintiffs in two class action proceedings sought leave to appeal the dismissal of their motion for contempt against the defendants.

The contempt motion alleged that the City of Windsor breached an order limiting communication with class members during an opt-out period.

The court denied leave to appeal, finding that the original judge correctly applied the test for contempt, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a clear and unequivocal order, and deliberate and willful disobedience.

The court found no error in the original judge's conclusion that the order was ambiguous and that a wilful breach was not proven.

Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiffs failed to identify any conflicting decisions or raise matters of such importance to warrant leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicants challenged the Last Will and Testament of the deceased, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by the respondent.

The court found that the applicants failed to discharge their onus of proving undue influence and that the deceased possessed the requisite capacity to make his will.

The court upheld the August 23, 2013 Will as valid, reflecting the testator's intentions to keep the farm lands in the family and ensure fairness to all children.

The respondents brought a motion to vary a consent order, which the court determined was an interlocutory injunction, to remove restraints on their ability to deal with the assets of 1889072 Ontario Limited.

The applicant sought the continuation of this injunction.

The court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the prerequisites for an interlocutory injunction as established in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), specifically regarding a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, and an undertaking as to damages.

Consequently, the respondents' motion was granted, and the interlocutory injunction was not continued.

The applicant sought an order in the nature of certiorari to review and set aside his committal to trial on various firearm charges.

The central issue was whether there was any evidence from which a reasonably instructed jury could infer the applicant's knowledge of a firearm, an essential element of possession.

The court reviewed the preliminary hearing judge's reliance on circumstantial evidence, including the location of a hidden firearm, a single 9mm round in a jar, and the applicant's control over the apartment.

The court found that the inferences drawn by the preliminary hearing judge regarding the applicant's knowledge of the firearm and the link between the single round and the hidden firearm were speculative and not supported by the evidence, which was equally consistent with the co-accused's possession.

Consequently, the application for certiorari was granted, and the committal to trial was quashed.

The parties, former friends, entered a business investment involving two properties.

The business relationship deteriorated, leading Chute to bring an application for partition and sale.

Pryor subsequently brought a motion seeking removal of Chute's personal property, authorization to operate the music hall, and a final disposition.

The court found Chute consistently interfered with the business operations and violated previous court orders.

An interim order was issued releasing Pryor from undertakings, making both parties jointly responsible for property expenses managed by counsel, and expediting an early trial date to resolve the dispute and income loss issues.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages following an unprovoked assault by the defendant in a bar, which resulted in a severe facial laceration and PTSD.

The defendant was noted in default.

The court assessed damages, awarding $75,000 in general damages (reduced by a $25,000 prior settlement with the bar), $15,000 in punitive damages, and special damages, for a total award of $71,019.29 plus costs.

Chad Ouellette brought a motion for a declaration that no child support arrears were owed to his former wife, Lynne Ouellette (now Lynne Sawyer), and that he had overpaid.

Ms. Sawyer argued that Mr. Ouellette should be responsible for child support based on his former income, asserting that his failure to provide updated employment information disentitled him to a reduction.

She also sought to have a higher income imputed to him based on past earning potential and alleged "cash work." The court, after a trial, found Mr. Ouellette's evidence regarding his employment and cash earnings to be credible and rejected Ms. Sawyer's claims of imputed income as speculative and unsupported.

The court ordered that Mr. Ouellette's child support arrears be reduced to zero but found no evidence of overpayment.

No costs were awarded, as both parties' conduct contributed to the necessity of the trial.