A.D.K. MacKenzie

The court addressed the settlement of the form of order following earlier reasons that disposed of motions to change a prior consent order concerning custody, access, and support.

The parties disagreed on the wording and implementation of the resulting order, including issues relating to the applicant’s employment income, the calculation of child support under the Child Support Guidelines, and spousal support under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Based on available evidence including employment records and tax documentation, the court fixed provisional support obligations pending final determination based on tax filings.

The court also clarified the treatment of retroactive spousal support and the set‑off of child support arrears against a mortgage debt between the parties.

Following a trial decision varying spousal support from $2,900 per month to $2,000 per month, the court addressed costs under the Family Law Rules.

Both parties relied on Rule 24 and argued they were the successful party, with particular emphasis on the reasonableness of their respective settlement offers.

The court found the respondent’s offer of $1,951 per month was significantly closer to the ultimate award than the applicant’s settlement position of approximately $2,900 to $3,000 per month.

The court rejected the applicant’s argument that she was the successful party and concluded the respondent had been substantially successful.

Costs of $5,000 all inclusive were awarded to the respondent, payable by monthly deductions from spousal support.

In a costs endorsement arising from a guardianship application under the Substitute Decisions Act, the court determined responsibility for costs incurred up to and including January 4, 2012.

Applying estate-litigation costs principles and Rule 57 factors, the court held that ordinary civil costs rules govern subject to limited exceptions and found the responding party's conduct unnecessarily prolonged the proceeding.

The court rejected attempts to reduce costs based on legal aid billing rates and disallowed claimed prospective future legal work.

It fixed all-inclusive costs for both the applicant and one responding party, directed immediate payment from the estate, and required reimbursement by the other responding party.

Cross-motions to change a consent family law order addressing custody, access, child support, and spousal support for multiple children of the marriage.

The court considered whether a material change in circumstances justified variation of the joint custody and detailed access regime established in the consent order.

Applying the material change threshold under the Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found no sufficient change to justify altering the custody or access provisions.

However, adjustments were required for support obligations due to the payor’s temporary disability income and uncertainty regarding his return to employment.

The court ordered recalculated child support based on disability income, interim spousal support pending resumption of employment, and set-off of support arrears against a mortgage debt owed between the parties.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs’ motion seeking production of documents from non-parties and to quash a summons requiring a non-party to attend for examination.

The action had already been set down for trial after the plaintiffs served a trial record.

The court held that under Rule 48.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party who has set an action down for trial cannot initiate further discovery or related motions without leave of the court, absent exceptional circumstances.

The plaintiffs failed to seek leave and did not establish any substantial or unexpected change in circumstances justifying further discovery.

The summons to the non-party was also non‑compliant with Rule 34.03 because it required attendance in a different region from the witness’s residence.

A costs endorsement arising from a motion under Rule 7.08 seeking court approval of a minor’s settlement relating to statutory accident benefits following a catastrophic motor vehicle injury.

The settlement totalled $1,275,000, including a structured annuity and funds used to purchase a residence for the injured minor.

The Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee raised concerns regarding the reasonableness of counsel’s fees and recommended a reduction.

After reviewing supplementary evidence and considering the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court concluded that fees representing 17.14 percent of the settlement were fair and reasonable given the complexity and duration of the litigation.

Following a 23‑year marriage, the parties disputed the appropriate quantum of indefinite spousal support.

Entitlement was not contested, but the payor spouse argued income should be imputed to the recipient spouse because she had made insufficient efforts toward economic self‑sufficiency after separation.

The court considered the objectives of spousal support under the Divorce Act, including the promotion of self‑sufficiency, and the principles governing imputation of income.

Finding that the recipient spouse had not made reasonable efforts to obtain employment or retraining, the court imputed income at $20,000 per year.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court reduced the monthly support obligation from $2,900 to $2,000 and ordered that the obligation be secured by life insurance.

The plaintiffs brought motions seeking leave to vacate a certificate of trial readiness under Rule 48.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, amend their statement of claim under Rule 26.01, and conduct examinations for discovery of the defendants.

The underlying action arose from a slip and fall on an allegedly unstable concrete slab at the entrance of a residential property purchased from the developer and builder defendants.

The court found that the suspension of the plaintiffs’ former counsel by the Law Society constituted an unexpected change in circumstances justifying leave to vacate the certificate of readiness for trial.

However, the proposed amendments were refused because they introduced a new cause of action based on contractual allegations that would cause non-compensable prejudice and raise limitation period issues.

The court permitted the plaintiffs to proceed with examinations for discovery of the defendants, with the plaintiffs responsible for the costs of such discoveries in any event of the cause.

In an undefended civil action, nightclub patrons sought damages after one plaintiff was assaulted by unidentified customers on the premises.

The court proceeded under the Rules of Civil Procedure after striking the defence and jury notice for non-compliance with a prior order requiring corporate defendants to appoint counsel or obtain leave for representation.

Liability was effectively established on deemed facts grounded in alleged breaches of occupiers' and liquor-service duties.

The court awarded non-pecuniary damages, past income loss, and Family Law Act damages, plus partial indemnity costs and pre- and post-judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act.