Adam N. Black

This is an appeal in a protracted family law matter.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's orders regarding supervised parenting time, beneficial ownership of Universal Wealth Assets Ltd. (UWA), support payable, and a broad restraining order.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal the trial judge's costs award of $950,000.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on all grounds, finding no error in the trial judge's findings regarding parenting time, support, or the restraining order.

While the declaration of UWA ownership was found to be made without jurisdiction as it was not sought as relief, this did not impact the case's outcome.

Leave to appeal costs was denied, as the high award was justified by the appellant's misconduct, fraudulent activity, and bad faith throughout the litigation.

Following the dismissal of the mother's appeal from two family law arbitration awards, the father sought full recovery of costs totaling $99,284.63 based on offers to settle.

The mother argued for no costs or costs fixed at $20,000.

The court found the father was presumptively entitled to full recovery of costs from the date of his first offer to settle, which was as favourable as the outcome of the appeal.

After considering the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, and noting discrepancies in the hours docketed by both sides, the court fixed the father's costs at $70,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The parties in a family law application resolved disclosure motions by consent, agreeing that orders would issue and either party could seek costs on written submissions.

The court declined to make a costs award, citing that the motion was not heard on the merits, making it difficult to determine success or inappropriate behaviour.

The court also emphasized the disproportionate allocation of judicial resources required to review extensive cost submissions for a matter settled by consent, and the principle that parties are best positioned to determine costs at settlement.

The applicant brought a motion to list two jointly owned properties for sale.

The respondent opposed, seeking a right of first refusal or a hold-back from proceeds.

The parties settled the substantive issues by consent order, which included a $60,000 hold-back but no right of first refusal.

The court was asked to determine costs based on written submissions.

The court found that success was divided, as neither party's offers were clearly more favorable than the consent order, and the evidence was insufficient to determine fault in pre-motion negotiations.

Consequently, no costs were awarded to either party.

This is a costs endorsement arising from an unsuccessful motion by Mr. Regisford to terminate spousal support.

Ms. Regisford opposed the motion, arguing it was premature, which the court agreed with, dismissing the motion.

Ms. Regisford, as the successful party, sought costs on a full recovery basis.

The court assessed costs considering the reasonableness of Mr. Regisford's conduct, the complexity of the issues, counsel's hourly rates, and time reasonably spent.

While Ms. Regisford's offer to settle was met, the court found Mr. Regisford's conduct, though not fully compliant with disclosure rules, did not amount to bad faith.

The court awarded Ms. Regisford costs on a substantial indemnity scale for the hearing and partial indemnity for preparation, totaling $5,791.25 inclusive of HST and disbursements, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The applicant husband brought a motion to terminate a temporary, without-prejudice spousal support order of $5,000 per month after he was laid off from his employment.

He also argued that the respondent wife was intentionally unemployed.

The court dismissed the motion as premature, finding that the applicant was still receiving severance pay equivalent to his previous income, and the respondent was awaiting arbitration for her dismissal grievance.

The court declined to impute income to the respondent and held that the existing support amount remained appropriate based on the parties' current actual incomes.

The court issued a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to change a prior judgment.

The court found the applicant to be the primary instigator of ongoing litigation and unreasonable conduct, though the respondent's conduct was also noted as unreasonable at times.

The respondent was awarded partial indemnity costs, fixed at $37,240.45, with the court rejecting the applicant's claims of undue hardship and impact on children's best interests as grounds to deny costs.

The court issued supplementary reasons following the dismissal of Elena Albergaria's motion to change a prior judgment, addressing outstanding issues of child and spousal support, including overpayments/underpayments, and Section 7 expenses.

The court affirmed its jurisdiction to issue these reasons before a formal order was perfected, correcting an oversight.

It determined Elena was entitled to spousal support for an additional two years, calculated future support amounts based on the parties' incomes and prior agreements, and adjusted for Daniel's significant overpayments in both spousal and child support.

Future Section 7 expenses were also allocated.

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of amendments to section 737 of the Criminal Code that removed judicial discretion and made the victim surcharge mandatory.

The court found that the mandatory imposition of the surcharge, where no fine is imposed, violates section 7 of the Charter by negatively impacting security of the person.

The removal of judicial discretion was found to be arbitrary, overreaching, and grossly disproportionate to the legislative goal of increasing offenders' accountability to victims.

The violation could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The court declared the mandatory surcharge provisions to be of no force and effect.