William Kort

The father brought a motion to vary a final consent order to expand his access to his two children.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing it should not be heard because the father was in arrears of child support and costs, and denying she had breached the access order.

The court held that the father's arrears did not preclude his motion because he had reduced them and provided a reasonable explanation.

The court found the mother had intentionally breached the access order by prioritizing the children's hockey commitments over the father's access.

Finding a material change in circumstances, the court expanded the father's access to at least 35%, rescinded a prior restraining order against him, and changed the access exchange location to reduce conflict.

Cross-applications sought interpretation of a right of first refusal clause in a commercial lease.

The tenant argued the right crystallized into an option to purchase once the landlord received an offer and could not be defeated by termination of the lease.

The landlord contended the clause was expressly limited by a lease provision allowing termination upon receipt of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The court held the right of first refusal was expressly subject to the termination mechanism in the lease.

The landlord’s notice of termination under the relevant clause validly ended both the tenancy and the right of first refusal.

Cross-applications sought interpretation of a right of first refusal clause in a commercial lease.

The tenant argued the right crystallized into an option to purchase once the landlord received an offer and could not be defeated by termination of the lease.

The landlord contended the clause was expressly limited by a lease provision allowing termination upon receipt of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The court held the right of first refusal was expressly subject to the termination mechanism in the lease.

The landlord’s notice of termination under the relevant clause validly ended both the tenancy and the right of first refusal.

A family law motion concerning parenting time over the Christmas holiday period.

The parties consented to a schedule granting the respondent specified holiday access with the children on three defined periods between December 2013 and January 2014.

The court ordered the schedule on consent and adjourned the balance of the motion to a later date for further consideration.

The parties were granted leave to file additional materials before the adjourned hearing and costs were reserved.