Thomas William Curran

The plaintiff, Howard and Associates Inc., brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that the defendant, Tomasek Agencies Inc., was not a "dependent contractor" and an order for the delivery of a sworn affidavit of documents.

The defendant had initially asserted a dependent contractor relationship but later clarified its position was based on implied contractual rights.

The court found the issue of dependent contractor status was not theoretical given the defendant's initial stance and reference to "economic dependence." The motion was granted, declaring that the defendant was not a dependent contractor and ordering the delivery of a sworn affidavit of documents.

In a child protection proceeding, the court considered whether two young children previously placed with their maternal grandparents should be returned to the parents under an interim supervision order.

The evidence showed both parents had histories of substance abuse, though the mother had demonstrated recent progress through negative drug testing and treatment participation, while the father continued to test positive for marijuana and had not fully advanced in treatment.

The court held that parental drug use may constitute a risk to children depending on the factual context and rejected the argument that drug use alone can never affect parenting capacity.

The children were returned to the mother’s temporary care subject to Society supervision and extensive conditions addressing treatment compliance, drug testing, and supervision of the father’s access.

The father was permitted to remain in the home but could only have supervised contact with the children except in limited circumstances.

The respondent to an earlier application brought a motion to set aside a default judgment entered against him as guarantor on a promissory note.

The moving party argued the judgment should be set aside due to defective notice of the application, alleged representations by opposing counsel, and an asserted defence relating to inadequate legal advice regarding the guarantee.

The court accepted that the notice of application contained procedural defects and created confusion about whether the matter had already been decided.

However, the court held that the moving party failed to bring the motion promptly and demonstrated no viable defence on the merits.

Applying Rule 38.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and emphasizing the principles in Rule 1.04 regarding just and efficient determination of proceedings, the court declined to set aside the judgment.