Wolfgang J. Pazulla

The plaintiff moved for leave to amend a statement of claim in a shareholder oppression action under the Business Corporations Act and to add additional defendants.

The proposed amendments included clarification of existing claims, allegations of post‑litigation asset transfers, and claims involving fraudulent preferences, conspiracy, and diversion of corporate opportunities.

The court held that most amendments were legally tenable and arose from facts discovered after the action had been set down for trial, and therefore should be permitted.

However, amendments alleging misconduct by the defendants in the conduct of the litigation were found irrelevant to the pleaded causes of action and contrary to proper pleading rules.

Leave to amend was granted except for those specific allegations.

Following a brief marriage and the birth of a child, the applicant sought custody, child support, section 7 expenses, retroactive and ongoing support, and limited access arrangements for the respondent father residing in the United States.

The court found the father intentionally under‑employed and imputed income of $150,000 for child support purposes under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

Evidence from supervised access providers demonstrated the father’s interactions with the child were appropriate, while the applicant had interfered with access.

The court ordered a structured regime beginning with supervised access followed by unsupervised access in Ontario, declining immediate international access visits.

Retroactive child support and limited retroactive spousal support during the maternity leave period were granted, and proportionate contributions were ordered for childcare expenses.

Following a successful application declaring a right of way over the respondent’s property and directing rectification of the land register, the court addressed costs after the parties failed to agree.

The applicants sought partial indemnity costs of $13,766.20.

The responding parties argued no costs should be awarded or, alternatively, that the amount claimed was excessive given the limited complexity of the matter.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, the court reduced the amount claimed due to excessive time entries and costs unrelated to the opposing respondents.

Partial indemnity costs were fixed at $9,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicants sought declarations and rectification of land title records concerning a nine-foot right of way benefiting their property.

The court held the easement created by express grant in 1964 had not been extinguished, rejecting abandonment arguments tied to non-use and later title-description errors during conversion to land titles.

The court found the responding party had actual notice through registered descriptions and referenced plans, and was not protected as an innocent purchaser without notice.

The application was allowed, with orders directing the Land Registrar to amend the parcel registers to reflect the subsisting right of way and costs awarded to the applicants.