Tracey J. Nieckarz

This motion concerned the ongoing contempt of Robert Kennepohl for failing to comply with multiple court orders related to the administration of the Estate of Helene Marie-Therese Kennepohl.

Despite previous findings of contempt, fines, costs, and extensions, the respondent remained non-compliant and failed to appear at the hearing.

The court, finding no other effective sanctions, ordered the respondent's imprisonment with escalating terms for continued non-compliance, emphasizing the disregard for the court and the impact on the estate administration.

This endorsement from a case management conference addresses the owner's non-compliance with a previous order regarding insurance policies for a property subject to a forfeiture application.

The court ordered the owner to comply with the insurance requirements by a specific date and established a detailed timetable for the forfeiture application to proceed, including deadlines for records, cross-examinations, and factums.

The owner, who was self-represented, was cautioned about the consequences of non-compliance and urged to seek legal advice.

The plaintiff, Wilderness North Air, was awarded a contract by Hydro One Remote Communities Inc. (Remotes) to be the primary vendor for the delivery of diesel fuel by air to five remote First Nations communities.

After the contract was awarded, several First Nations communities issued Band Council Resolutions (BCRs) stating they would only accept fuel delivered by Wasaya Airways, a First Nations-owned airline that had been unsuccessful in the bidding process.

Remotes subsequently cancelled Wilderness's purchase orders for four of the communities and awarded the work to Wasaya and another carrier.

Wilderness sued Remotes for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith, and sued Wasaya for inducing breach of contract.

The Superior Court of Justice found that Remotes breached the contract and its duty of good faith, and that Wasaya induced the breach.

Wilderness was awarded $2,718,988 in damages, with Wasaya jointly and severally liable for $856,458.

The applicant, Brian Buday, brought a motion seeking an order to continue an application in the absence of a person representing the estate of his deceased father, Paul Buday, and a vesting order for a property Paul allegedly gifted to him.

The estate was found to be impecunious, and the named executors (Brian and his brother Glen) were in conflict, making it impractical for them to act as litigation administrators.

The court granted the request to proceed without a litigation administrator, finding it in the interests of justice.

However, the court declined to grant the vesting order summarily, determining that a limited trial of the issue was necessary due to conflicting evidence regarding Paul's intention to gift the property and its historical use.

The accused was charged with second-degree murder following a fatal stabbing that occurred during a drug transaction.

The accused claimed he acted in self-defence after the victim suddenly attacked him with body spray and grabbed a knife.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess the accused's credibility and the three-part test for self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not act in lawful self-defence, concluding that the accused's response was reasonable in the rapidly evolving and unpredictable circumstances.

The accused was acquitted.

The defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' defamation action was unsuccessful.

This decision addresses the plaintiffs' request for costs.

Despite a statutory presumption against costs for unsuccessful anti-SLAPP motions under s. 137.1(8) of the Courts of Justice Act, the court exercised its discretion to award partial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs.

The court found that the original lawsuit did not exhibit the characteristics of strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) and the impugned expression was not public interest speech.

Considering factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the complexity and importance of the issues, the court awarded $10,000 in costs to the plaintiffs, reducing the amount claimed due to concerns about the hours spent and the number of lawyers involved.

The accused, S.K., faced twenty-five criminal charges, including assault, unlawful confinement, sexual touching, and sexual assault, involving three child complainants (H.E.P., H.J.P., and B.A.K.).

The trial involved assessing the credibility and reliability of the complainants' and the accused's evidence, particularly given the passage of time and the complainants' young ages at the time of the alleged events.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework for evaluating competing versions of events and considered the impact of recovered memories and inter-complainant discussions on reliability.

The accused was found guilty on one count of assault (count #16, an open palm slap to H.J.P.'s face) and acquitted on all remaining twenty-four counts due to reasonable doubt arising from inconsistencies and concerns about the reliability of the complainants' recollections.

The Applicant, Ms. Baxter, sought an order for costs against the Respondent, Mr. Pykari, related to Mr. Pykari’s dismissed motion to vary child and spousal support on a temporary basis.

The court awarded Ms. Baxter costs in the amount of $8,500, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The decision applied family cost rules, emphasizing the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs, and considered factors such as the parties' behaviour, the complexity of issues, and proportionality.

The court found that Mr. Pykari's original motion was best left for trial due to insufficient evidence and dated income information, and noted that both parties shared responsibility for delays and lack of disclosure, which influenced the final costs award.

This criminal trial concerned charges against the accused, J.M., for sexual touching (s. 151) and inviting sexual touching (s. 152) of his step-daughter, L.M., who was 8-9 years old at the time of the alleged offences.

The central issue was the credibility and reliability of the child complainant's evidence, including the admissibility and weight of her video-taped statement under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

The defence argued that the complainant's evidence was influenced by leading questions from the police officer and her mother, and contained material inconsistencies.

The court found the complainant's evidence compelling and credible despite some frailties and inconsistencies, concluding that the sexual abuse involving penetration and cunnilingus occurred.

The accused was found guilty on the sexual touching charge (s. 151) but acquitted on the inviting sexual touching charge (s. 152) due to insufficient detail and reliability for that specific allegation.

This decision addresses two consolidated applications seeking a declaration that Great American Insurance Company (GAIC) has a duty to defend the City of Thunder Bay in multiple actions concerning "pinhole leaks" in water pipes.

GAIC denied coverage, relying on a lead exclusion clause.

The court found the lead exclusion ambiguous and, applying the "mere possibility" test, determined that GAIC failed to prove the exclusion clearly and unambiguously applied to the claims, which primarily alleged negligence related to the introduction of sodium hydroxide, not lead.

The court declared GAIC obliged to defend the City.

The plaintiff contractor brought an action against the defendant owner for extension and delay costs incurred during a construction project governed by a CCDC2 fixed price contract.

The project was delayed by six months due to owner-directed changes and design issues, which were addressed through Change Orders that extended the contract time and increased the price, but did not include the contractor's site and delay costs.

The court dismissed the action, finding that under the fixed price contract, the contractor was required to include all costs associated with a change in the Change Orders, or alternatively, provide timely written notice of a delay claim.

The court also declined to grant relief from forfeiture, concluding that the contractor's failure to follow the contractual notice provisions was unreasonable and undermined the cost certainty intended by the contract.

The respondent sought to vary interim child and spousal support orders, arguing for annual adjustments to child support and termination or reduction of spousal support due to decreased income and accumulated arrears.

The applicant opposed, arguing the issues were for trial due to complex income determination, including the respondent's business income and potential imputation of income to both parties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence to determine income for support purposes and that the issues were best left for a full trial.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding the respondent eligible for funding for an attendant care benefit assessment.

The respondent suffered minor injuries in a motor vehicle accident but was removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing medical condition.

The insurer argued that because the injuries were minor, the respondent was excluded from attendant care assessments under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The Divisional Court upheld the LAT's interpretation that once a claimant is removed from the MIG due to a pre-existing condition, they are no longer subject to the limits for minor injuries, and the test for services becomes what is reasonable and necessary.

The appeal was dismissed.

In an uncontested trial, the applicant sought the remaining proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home ($19,930.04) on account of an equalization of net family property, as well as the transfer of a snowmobile.

The respondent had failed to provide financial disclosure despite a court order.

The court reviewed the applicant's net family property statement, made minor adjustments, and found the respondent owed the applicant $22,723.95.

The court ordered the funds held in trust to be paid to the applicant in full satisfaction of the equalization claim, ordered the transfer of the snowmobile, and awarded $1,000 in costs to the applicant.

The Business Development Bank of Canada moved for summary judgment against a corporate borrower and its individual guarantors for defaulted loans.

The defendants admitted the facts of the debt but presented an "incomprehensible" defence based on a "sovereign citizen" type argument regarding their legal persona and "securities" derived from their names.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, ruling that the defendants' arguments were legally untenable and did not constitute a valid defence.

Summary judgment was granted to the Bank for the full outstanding loan amounts, interest, and partial indemnity costs.

The parties, former common-law spouses, sought resolution regarding the sale of their jointly owned home, division of proceeds, and claims for unjust enrichment and occupation rent.

The respondent sought credit for the down payment he made, arguing unjust enrichment to the applicant.

The applicant sought immediate sale, equal division, and occupation rent.

The court found that while the respondent was initially unjustly enriched, the applicant's subsequent greater contributions to household expenses during the relationship remedied this, leading to an equal division of net sale proceeds.

The court dismissed the claim for occupation rent and ordered the immediate sale of the home with equal division of proceeds after payment of the mortgage, joint line of credit, and sale costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to each of the two responding parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were provided by any party, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal multiple orders and requested extensions of time.

The Divisional Court denied the motion and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two orders of the lower court.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $1,000.