Van Melle

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim arising from a trip and fall on her premises.

The central issue was whether the plaintiff, who had cohabited with the defendant and contributed to household expenses and maintenance, was an 'occupier' or a 'visitor' under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The court found that the plaintiff was a co-occupier, exercising sufficient control over the premises, and therefore could not maintain a claim against the defendant under the Act.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the plaintiff's claim, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' one-year-old child to Pennsylvania.

The respondent mother had unilaterally removed the child to Ontario, arguing that Pennsylvania was not the child's habitual residence, that the father had acquiesced to the move, and that returning would expose the child to a grave risk of harm due to domestic violence.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Pennsylvania, the father did not acquiesce, and the mother failed to establish that Pennsylvania courts could not protect her from the alleged harm.

The application was granted and the child was ordered returned to Pennsylvania.

The applicants brought an application regarding the administration of an estate.

They sought an order that the estate not pay tax on an RRSP, which was dismissed as the Income Tax Act makes the estate liable.

The respondent sought costs of the application, arguing it was unnecessary.

The court denied the respondent's costs claim, finding that his own errors, misstatements, and conflicts of interest in administering the estate caused the applicants' mistrust and necessitated the application.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's medical malpractice claim regarding therapeutic Botox injections.

The court found the action was statute-barred because the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the material facts and attributed her symptoms to the Botox treatment well beyond the two-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff's failure to produce expert evidence establishing a breach of the standard of care and causation meant there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support, claiming an inability to work due to medical issues.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for a defence medical and to sever the divorce from corollary relief.

The court dismissed the spousal support motion, finding the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for entitlement or provide cogent medical evidence of his inability to work.

The court granted the respondent's motion to sever the divorce, noting there were no children of the marriage.

The respondent was awarded costs of $5,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion to restore her action to the trial list.

The action was commenced in 1999 and struck from the trial list in 2004.

The court applied the conjunctive test from Nissar, finding the plaintiff failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay.

Furthermore, the court found actual prejudice to the defendants due to fading memories, the death of a key witness, and the terminal illness of one of the defendants.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

The mother brought a motion to change a previous child support order, seeking to terminate support for one child, reduce support for the other due to a workplace injury, and expunge costs awarded against her at trial and on appeal.

The court dismissed the requests to expunge costs and issue a restraining order.

The court adjusted child support to reflect a period when one child lived with the mother and reduced her ongoing child support obligation based on her current imputed income.

This judgment addresses the remaining issues following a divorce order, including equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, child support, and payment of a Maher.

The court determined equalization payments, imputed income to the respondent for child support calculations, and ordered contributions to special expenses for post-secondary education.

The court also affirmed the enforceability of a Maher as a legal marriage contract under the Family Law Act, rejecting the respondent's Sharia Law arguments.

This family law proceeding involved an application for child support, spousal support, and access.

The court addressed the striking of the applicant's pleadings due to non-disclosure, finding that the applicant had largely complied and that a previous order to strike did not meet the requirements of Kovachis v. Kovachis.

The court imputed an income of $65,000 per year to the self-employed applicant for child support purposes, ordered retroactive child support of $42,700, and ongoing child support of $966 per month, plus 65% of Section 7 expenses.

The respondent's claim for spousal support was denied based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court also granted the respondent the ability to apply for children's passports and travel with the children without the applicant's consent, subject to providing an itinerary.

The applicant's request for a more flexible access schedule was denied, and the existing alternate weekend access schedule was maintained.

This endorsement addresses costs following a successful application by the respondents.

The respondents, Bart Toby and the Town of Saugeen Shores, sought substantial indemnity costs, or partial indemnity, while Weichold Limited sought partial indemnity.

The applicant argued for no costs or partial indemnity.

The court determined the matter was not complex or novel and awarded partial indemnity costs to all respondents, noting that an offer to settle by Toby and Saugeen Shores, though served too late for full substantial indemnity, would have avoided the hearing.

The plaintiff moved for the appointment of an inspector over 2390247 Ontario Inc. c.o.b.

Alyousef Brother’s, alleging he was a beneficial shareholder and that the business was conducted oppressively.

The defendants disputed his shareholder status and argued other remedies should be exhausted.

The court found a prima facie case that the plaintiff was a beneficial shareholder, supported by documentary evidence including emails and text messages demonstrating his involvement in the company's formation and contract negotiations.

Given the defendants' lack of cooperation in providing financial information, the court determined that an investigation was appropriate.

The motion was granted, and an inspector was appointed with specific powers and reporting obligations to investigate the company's financial affairs.

The plaintiff was awarded costs.

The respondent brought a motion to terminate child support for one child, recalculate child support, and fix arrears for Section 7 expenses.

The applicant sought payment of Section 7 expenses and ongoing support for the other child.

The court terminated child support for the elder child as of August 1, 2012.

The applicant's claim for Section 7 expenses was largely denied due to her non-compliance with a prior court order requiring consent and receipts, except for $8,000 for extracurriculars and $1,500 for uninsured medical expenses.

The respondent's child support overpayment of $19,317 was recognized and offset by the $9,500 owed to the applicant.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to prior settlement agreements and disclosure obligations.

This endorsement concerns a review of supervised access for a father with a criminal conviction for sexual assault, with a view to transitioning to unsupervised access.

The court considered an updated assessment report, which found the risk of harm to the children from the father to be very low.

Despite the mother's objections, the court ordered a cautious, phased transition to unsupervised access, along with immediate unsupervised phone, Skype, and email contact.

The parties were directed to return to court after several months for further review and implementation of a regular unsupervised schedule.

The applicant, Samantha Abigail Lawrence, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole custody of the child, Solomon, orders for travel documents (Canadian passport and Nexus card) without the respondent's consent, and retroactive and ongoing child support.

The respondent, Nicholas Cordell Riley, who was self-represented and resided in Maryland, sought joint physical and legal custody and a revised child support order.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, confirmed and extended travel orders, established specific Skype access for the respondent, and ordered ongoing and significant retroactive child support, noting the respondent's failure to provide financial disclosure.

The plaintiff, Nissan Canada Finance, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for amounts outstanding on a vehicle lease.

The defendants leased a vehicle which immediately went into arrears and was later involved in an accident and sold at auction.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing there were genuine issues for trial, including the amount owing, whether the plaintiff had to pursue insurance, and the vehicle's sale price.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, as the amounts were readily ascertainable from the contract and the plaintiff had no obligation to pursue the defendants' insurer.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

Following an uncontested trial where the respondent's pleadings had been struck for failure to comply with court orders, the applicant sought costs of $57,710.43.

The court found the respondent's unreasonable behaviour, including failure to provide disclosure and pay support, significantly increased the applicant's legal costs.

The court awarded the applicant $50,000 in costs, ordering that $25,000 of this amount be enforceable as child support.

The applicant moved for an order striking the respondent's pleadings, staying proceedings, or for security for costs due to alleged non-compliance with orders and unpaid costs.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking to vary child support, rescind arrears, obtain financial disclosure from the applicant, and prevent further motions without leave.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion to strike pleadings and for security for costs, finding that the respondent's failure to pay costs was due to a medical condition and that disclosure was largely forthcoming.

The respondent's motion for summary judgment on access was not dealt with, and his motion to reduce child support was adjourned.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs of $6,593.25 related to a motion, citing the respondent's procedural failures and non-compliance with court orders.

The court found the applicant's arguments for substantial indemnity unpersuasive.

The judge noted several issues with the applicant's own claims during the motion, including the improper inclusion of pre-separation expenses as Section 7 expenses, incorrect spousal support calculations, persistence in seeking an annulment without standing, and requesting a custody order that had already been granted.

The court concluded that the motion requests were not reasonable and no realistic offer to settle had been served, therefore declining to award costs on any basis.

The plaintiff tripped and fell over a surface-mounted tennis post sleeve while playing cricket on a municipal tennis court.

The defendant municipality moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issue for trial because the plaintiff admitted to knowing the posts were there but momentarily forgot about them, and the municipality's standard of care requires reasonableness, not perfection.

The applicant, Chantal Muswanba Bukasa, brought a motion seeking spousal support, sole custody, annulment of the respondent's subsequent marriage, disclosure of financial information, and contribution to section 7 expenses.

The court denied the annulment request, citing the applicant's lack of standing, and noted that a prior custody order for the child already existed.

The respondent, Patrice Nwepu Nyembwe, was ordered to provide full disclosure of his pension and REER information.

Most of the applicant's claims for section 7 expenses were rejected as they either predated separation, were not legitimate section 7 expenses (e.g., clothing), or lacked sufficient supporting detail.

The court awarded spousal support to the applicant at the high end of the Spousal Support Guidelines range, but significantly less than requested, based on the respondent's imputed income and after accounting for existing child support.

The respondent was also compelled to file a Financial Statement.