Woodley

During a trial regarding a commercial lease dispute, the plaintiff sought to introduce a 'With Prejudice' settlement offer it had previously served on the defendant.

The defendant objected to its admission on the basis of settlement privilege.

The court applied the three-part test for settlement privilege and held that the label 'With Prejudice' does not change the character of a communication made in furtherance of settlement.

The court ruled the offer was privileged and inadmissible under Rule 49.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The City of Kawartha Lakes brought an application for a permanent injunction, a closure order, and a mandatory remediation order against the respondents for operating an illegal commercial fill site on environmentally sensitive land.

The City also brought a motion for contempt against one respondent for continuing the fill operation in breach of a prior interim injunction.

The court granted the permanent injunction, closure order, and mandatory order, finding the respondents had blatantly violated municipal by-laws and imported massive amounts of contaminated fill.

The court also found the respondent in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt and ordered him to purge his contempt by remediating the property at his own expense.

The applicant son worked on his father's farm for 27 years for minimal wages, relying on his father's promise of a house and a parcel of land.

After the father's death, the farm was placed in a marital trust, and the son was evicted by his mother.

The son sought equitable relief and dependants' support.

The court found that the son established proprietary estoppel and awarded him a one-third interest in the farm.

The court also held that the estate trustees were required to sell the farm, as the mother had failed to pay the maintenance expenses required by the will to maintain her right to occupy the property.

The applicant father brought a motion to change his child support obligations retroactive to 2010, arguing his income as a self-employed contractor was lower than the amount imputed in the parties' separation agreement.

The respondent mother alleged the father's business expenses and subcontractor invoices were fraudulent.

The court found no fraud but preferred the evidence of the jointly retained income valuator over the father's testimony regarding his business expenses.

The court determined the father's income for support purposes, calculated child support arrears and overpayments, and ordered the father to pay his proportionate share of section 7 expenses and RESP contributions.

The accused was charged with possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after drugs were discovered during a strip search incident to arrest.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his rights under ss. 8 and 9.

The court found that the police lacked reasonable grounds for the warrantless arrest, relying on uncorroborated confidential informant information, violating s. 9.

Furthermore, the strip search violated s. 8 as it lacked sufficient grounds and was conducted in a highly unreasonable and degrading manner, leaving the accused fully naked for 15 minutes.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) and dismissed the charge.

The applicant mother brought a motion for the production of the respondent father's un-redacted Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) file pursuant to Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules.

The mother sought the records to assist in determining custody and access of their seven-year-old child, raising concerns about the father's mental health and his continuing eligibility for ODSP despite his doctor's notes stating he was stable.

The court found that the best interests of the child and related protection concerns took priority over the father's privacy rights.

The court ordered the production of the medical documentation from the ODSP file, but excluded the financial aspects as they were overly broad.

The applicant mother brought a motion to transfer the parties' two children to a new school closer to her temporary residence.

The parties shared joint custody and equal residency.

The court found that the mother had not established a permanent residence and that the proposed school change was inextricably tied to mobility issues.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, holding that it was premature to change the children's school before the mother established a permanent home, and that maintaining the current arrangement would minimize disruption and maximize contact with both parents.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and primary residence of the parties' 12-year-old child, alleging the respondent father was abusive and controlling.

The father sought joint custody and a shared parenting regime.

The court found the mother's allegations of abuse were unsupported by independent evidence and that she had actively resisted including the father as a co-parent.

Relying on the expert evidence of a court-appointed child psychiatrist who recommended co-parenting, the court ordered joint custody and a shared equal parenting schedule, with a detailed dispute resolution framework including a parenting coordinator.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that a 1994 cohabitation agreement was not valid in determining financial and support issues arising from the parties' final separation in 2012.

The parties had separated for more than 90 days in 1995, triggering the agreement's disposition provisions, but later reconciled, married, and cohabited until 2012.

The court held that the agreement was discharged by the triggering event in 1995 and, because it was not reinstated or amended in writing upon reconciliation, it had no application to the 2012 separation.

The applicant's motion was granted and the respondent's cross-motion to enforce the agreement was dismissed.