Law Times

PAGE 14 CASELAW CaseLaw is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada, and all Ontario courts. ONTARIO CIVIL CASES Applicants sought judicial re- view of respondent commis- sion' Application for licence was condi- tion precedent to granting of licence Administrative Law JUDICIAL REVIEW they be licensed. Commission regulated all forms of horserac- ing that took place in Ontario. Applicants were associations who represented horse people in Ontario. On behalf of members, associations engaged in negotia- tions with race tracks for sched- uling of racing and distribution of revenues earned from wa- gering. Members held licences from commission. Racetracks were licensed by commission. Commission made ruling that associations also had to be li- censed. Ruling ordered that as- sociations were licensed even though they had not applied for licence. Petition granted in part. Standard of review was reasonableness. Section 7(c) of Racing Commission Act, 2000 (Ont.), empowered commis- sion to require licensing of horse peoples' s decision requiring that sive interpretation of powers of commission supported broad understanding of s. 7(d) of Act. Associations' business was to represent horse people in deal- ings with racetracks concerning horseracing. Associations were very involved with horseracing from functional perspective. Considering associations to be "any other person in or about race track" in context of defining breadth of commission' associations. Purpo- date was reasonable. However, commission' s man- associations notwithstanding fact that they had not applied for licence was unreasonable. Application for licence was con- dition precedent to granting of s decision to licence licence. Ruling that unilaterally imposed licences and related re- quirements on associations was quashed. Pari-Mutuel Betting Supervision Regulations (Can.), contemplated imposition of some conditions on racing par- ticipants. Commission did not exceed jurisdiction in enacting contracting rules and direc- tives regarding agreements with race tracks and enactment was reasonable. Commission did not infringe collective bargain- ing rights of associations under s. 2(d) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There was no evidence of interference with associations' ability to or- ganize or negotiate on behalf of members or that commission' rules would permit racetracks to avoid contractual obligations to associations. Commission' s decision to require licensing was policy decision and it owed min- imal duty of procedural fairness to associations. Commission met minimal duty of procedural fairness. Ontario Harness Horse Assn. v. Ontario Racing Commission (June 12, 2012, Ont. S.C.J. (Div. Ct.), Aston, Murray and Har- vison Young JJ., File No. 36/12) 218 A.C.W.S. (3d) 239 (21 pp.). s Civil Procedure Plaintiffs split property. One portion was transferred to son and daughter-in-law and other portion was transferred to de- fendants. Plaintiffs retained life interest in both pieces of prop- erty. Plaintiffs signed direction to remove plaintiffs' life inter- est from defendants' portion. Plaintiffs sought declaration that direction was void and sought $50,000 for elder abuse. Defendants brought third party claim against son and sisters of Law of torts did not regulate family relationships THIRD-PARTY PROCEEDINGS These cases may be found online in BestCase and other electronic resources from Canada Law Book. To subscribe, please call 1-800-565-6967. son for damages. Defendants claimed inter-meddling by son and sisters turned plaintiffs' minds against defendants. Third parties sought order out third party claim. Motion was allowed. Third-party claim did not disclose cause of action recognized in law. Third-party claim was dismissed. Heart of complaint was improper med- dling with relations between loved ones. Law of torts did not regulate family relationships. Joudrey v. Joudrey (June 5, 2012, Ont. S.C.J., Gauthier J., File No. C-1704-11 A) 218 A.C.W.S. (3d) 310 (7 pp.). striking Contracts Action by plaintiff for dam- ages for breach of contract and conversion. Plaintiff decided to close her giſt shop. Defendant agreed to sell plaintiff ' Defendant acted in callous and high-handed manner DAMAGES tory on eBay for 33-per-cent commission. Majority of plain- tiff ' s inven- on eBay. Defendant failed to re- spond to messages from plaintiff. Defendant ended up throwing out majority of plaintiff ' s inventory was never listed tory. Plaintiff never received any payment or accounting. Action allowed. Plaintiff was awarded $44,632.05 for compensatory damages and $10,000 for ag- gravated/punitive damages. Defendant had acted in callous and high-handed manner. De- fendant had dealt with plaintiff ' s inven- inventory without any regard to plaintiff ' s Defendant had also persistently failed to respond to plaintiff ' repeated requests to ascertain status and whereabouts of her inventory. Such conduct was worthy of condemnation. Lauzon v. There It Was Gone Inc. (June 19, 2012, Ont. S.C.J., Broad J., File No. C-344-09) 218 A.C.W.S. (3d) 327 (27 pp.). s legitimate interest. s Parties had two children. Moth- er sought temporary custody and permission to move imme- diately with children to United States. Father sought tempo- rary custody of children and sought to prevent move with children. Mother was primary caregiver and decision-maker since separation. Children thrived in mother' Temporary order permitting move to U.S. would have effect of pre-determining result of case Family Law CUSTODY care. Father worked out of town during weekdays. Mother was unable to find employment in Ontario. Mother had job offer in United States. Mother would have more financial security in United States and would receive substantial pay increase. Mother presented plan that would pro- vide substantial blocks of time with father. Mother offered to reduce father' s primary mother moved with children. It was in children' to grant temporary custody to mother. There was not cient level of co-operation and communication to establish order for joint custody was in children' s child support if s best interests suffi- in children's residence was not s best interests. Change permitted without trial. Tem- porary order permitting move to United States would have ef- fect of pre-determining result of case. Best possible evidence re- quired hearing from parties and witnesses and hearing indepen- dent views and preferences of children. Evidence did not show there was strong probability that mother would be success- ful at trial. Mother' move children to United States was dismissed. Access was to be as set out. Father was required to pay child support of $1,024 based on income of $69,122. Re- ferral was to be made to Office of Children' s motion to s Lawyer. Costa v. Funes (July 17, 2012, Ont. C.J., Sherr J., File No. D56987/12) 218 A.C.W.S. (3d) 376 (11 pp.). consequences of his choice on children Motion by mother for variation of child support. Father had been successful travel agent. Fa- ther had custody of three chil- dren aſter separation. Father purportedly chose to become missionary in El Salvador. Two oldest children were attending university while youngest child was currently living with moth- er. Father reportedly owned home with pool and expensive vehicle and travelled frequently. Father claimed he had received money from children' Father could not visit financial SUPPORT grandmother. Father claimed travel was covered by Air Miles accumulated on his credit card through his missionary work. Motion granted on terms. Mother was given option of pro- ceeding with trial of issue or ac- cepting present determination. In absence of trial of issue, father was required to pay child sup- port based on imputed income of $60,000. Father was inten- tionally under-employed. Father had successful career as travel agent earning up to $100,000 before becoming missionary. Fa- ther had voluntarily chosen path that would provide him with less income than he was capable of earning. No bad faith was attrib- uted to father but he could not visit financial consequences of his choice on his children. Newell v. Newell (June 19, 2012, Ont. S.C.J., Pedlar J., File No. 04- 1074) 218 A.C.W.S. (3d) 390 (12 pp.). s paternal Application by property owner Neighbours did not have unrestricted easement Real Property EASEMENTS November 19, 2012 • Law Times Heydary-2-LT_Apr2-12.indd 1 www.lawtimesnews.com 12-03-29 8:43 AM

• Cover