Adriana Doyle

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal a costs order arising from a family law motion regarding school choice.

The court applied the Enbridge test and found that the moving party failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the prescribed time, did not adequately explain the delay, and that the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The court also noted significant prejudice to the responding party.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding party.

The child, who was the subject of a high-conflict custody and child protection dispute, ran away and sought assistance from a legal clinic.

The father obtained an urgent motion order restraining the legal clinic and its lawyer from representing or contacting the child.

The legal clinic and the child appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by conflating a child's right to standing in a proceeding with their fundamental right to seek independent legal advice.

The court held that children are entitled to seek legal advice without permission from their parents or the court.

The court issued a trial management endorsement to address the resumption of a criminal trial that was adjourned due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The accused is charged with dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm.

The court ordered that the balance of the Crown's non-expert witnesses will testify via Zoom, while expert witnesses will testify in person at a later date.

The endorsement sets out detailed procedures for document sharing, witness management, and virtual courtroom etiquette.

The applicant mother sought to suspend or supervise the respondent father's access to their special needs child, Patrick, alleging non-compliance with medical protocols and COVID-19 procedures.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no material change in circumstances since a recent trial decision that had thoroughly addressed similar issues and established a gradual access regime.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the previous order and improving parental communication.

The Applicant mother sought costs following a successful motion where the court ordered the children to attend her proposed school.

The Respondent father opposed, arguing his school proposal was reasonable and the mother's claimed costs were excessive for a single-issue motion.

The court awarded the mother $3,000 in costs, finding her to be the successful party and her offer to settle reasonable, while noting the father's failure to respond to a draft order and assessing the proportionality of the amount claimed.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking the return of the children to Ottawa and unsupervised access.

The respondent mother opposed, requesting the children remain with her in Niagara and that the father's access be supervised due to his mental health issues.

The court ordered the mother to return the children to the matrimonial home in Ottawa, granted her exclusive possession, and allowed the father unsupervised access three times a week.

The mother was permitted to travel with the children to Niagara one week per month, during which the father could exercise access in Niagara.

The court found no compelling reasons for relocation and no evidence warranting supervised access.

The court addressed the settling of a final order following a trial, specifically concerning an omission in the prior decision regarding the children's surnames.

The applicant mother sought to include a previously agreed-upon consent for hyphenated surnames, which the respondent father opposed, arguing it was not in the original decision and required a formal motion under Rule 25(19)(b).

The court found it was not functus officio as the final order had not been issued, and therefore retained jurisdiction to amend its decision.

It determined that Rule 25(19)(b) was not applicable as no formal order existed yet.

The court decided to allow both parties to provide further submissions on the substantive issue of the surname change before finalizing the order.

This urgent motion addressed a dispute between separated parents with joint custody regarding the school placement for their two children, Sophia (11) and Osker (almost 9), for the upcoming academic year.

Neither parent resided within the catchment area of the children's current school.

The mother proposed Sophia attend Emily Carr Middle School and Osker attend Good Shepherd Catholic School, while the father proposed both children attend Chapel Hill Catholic School.

The court, applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, sided with the mother's proposal, emphasizing Sophia's anxiety and need for stability, the minimization of parental conflict through neutral pick-up/drop-off locations, and the mother's proactive role in addressing the children's special needs.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to suspend the respondent mother's access to their 7-year-old son, C.A.B., citing concerns about her compliance with COVID-19 directives and lack of communication regarding safety measures.

The court, emphasizing the child's best interests and the importance of routine, declined to suspend access.

Instead, it ordered that the existing access schedule continue, subject to new conditions and restrictions related to COVID-19 protocols, including immediate notification of potential exposure, detailed communication via Family Wizard after visits, the father primarily providing transportation, and avoiding public transportation as much as possible.

Costs were reserved.

The applicant mother sought the immediate return of children under a 2-2-3 parenting schedule or, alternatively, a week on/week off schedule, and child support.

The respondent father sought temporary custody and supervised visits for the mother, alleging non-compliance with COVID-19 directives and past parenting issues.

The court found it in the children's best interests to maintain shared parenting and ordered a week on/week off schedule due to the pandemic, limiting parent contact and travel.

The court also ordered the father to pay interim child support of $1000 per month, pending a full motion.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and restricted contact for the respondent father, citing her vulnerable health status during the COVID-19 pandemic and the father's alleged non-compliance with health protocols.

The court granted the mother interim exclusive possession of the home and ordered the father's contact with the children to be via electronic means, finding that the father had not adequately addressed the increased health risks to the family.

The court declined to address financial aspects due to insufficient information.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to modify a parenting agreement regarding supervised access to his three children, which the respondent mother had unilaterally restricted to virtual contact due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the matter urgent, emphasizing the need to uphold existing court orders and provide stability for children during uncertain times.

The court varied the access order, allowing for in-person supervised access at the paternal grandparents' home starting April 11, 2020, provided the father moved there and adhered to COVID-19 protocols.

Until then, access was to be virtual.

The court awarded the applicant father $20,000 in costs following a 6-day trial where he was largely successful in obtaining sole custody and primary residence.

The respondent mother, who was self-represented, was found to have been unprepared and unreasonable in her litigation conduct, though her financial circumstances were considered in determining the quantum of costs.

The court significantly reduced the father's requested costs due to proportionality concerns, duplication of legal efforts, and lack of itemized disbursements.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a two-day trial in a family law matter.

The Respondent Husband was found to be the more successful party on key issues including the duration and retroactivity of spousal support and the quantum of child support arrears, despite the Applicant Wife's success on the quantum of spousal support and a life insurance designation requirement.

Neither party's settlement offers triggered Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

Considering the divided success and the Husband's slightly more favorable outcome, the court ordered the Wife to pay the Husband $2,500 in costs.

Following the dismissal of the employer's appeal from a Small Claims Court decision awarding the employee $25,000 for wrongful dismissal, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The employee sought $16,450.25 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the employer argued for a lower amount.

The court found the issues were not complex and awarded partial indemnity costs of $5,000 for the appeal, plus the maximum allowable 15% of the damages ($3,750) for the trial costs under section 29 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Applicant sought costs after successfully obtaining an order to close an access road on her property, subject to a temporary suspension for the Respondent's use.

The Respondent opposed the costs request, arguing that the Applicant was aware of the access road's long-standing use when she purchased the property and that he had made settlement offers.

The court considered the parties' efforts to settle, the importance and complexity of the issues (easements), and the reasonableness of the Applicant's counsel's fees.

The court awarded the Applicant costs of $7,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton brought a motion for summary judgment seeking extended society care for two children, F.M.-C. and L.M., and findings of need of protection.

The mother, supported by the father and maternal grandparents, opposed the motion, arguing that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, including her progress in addressing Society concerns and the improper admission of evidence as business records.

The court dismissed the Society's motion, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial for both children, particularly regarding the mother's progress in addressing homelessness, substance use, and mental health, and the admissibility of the Society's evidentiary record.

The court emphasized the cautious approach required for summary judgment in child protection cases due to the high stakes and Charter rights involved.

The accused, a passenger in a vehicle stopped by police during a traffic investigation, brought a Charter application to exclude drug evidence found during a search incident to arrest.

The accused argued his rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10 of the Charter were violated.

The court found that the accused was not detained until an officer directed him to stop moving his hands, at which point the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him based on the smell of marijuana and the accused's suspicious movements.

The court concluded the search was lawful as incident to arrest and that a brief delay in providing right to counsel did not violate s. 10.

The Charter application was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $40,985.14 under Rule 20.06, arguing the plaintiff acted unreasonably by pursuing a partial summary judgment contrary to appellate authority.

The plaintiff argued for costs in the cause or on a partial indemnity basis, and claimed costs thrown away for a prior adjournment.

The court found the motion was unnecessary and contrary to the principles of proportionality, but noted that some of the preparatory work would be useful for the main action.

The court awarded the defendant fixed costs of $15,000, payable at the conclusion of the action.

The applicant sought an order under the Road Access Act to close an access road on her property used by the respondent to access his adjacent property.

The respondent opposed, claiming a legal right to use the road via a prescriptive easement, doctrine of lost modern grant, or easement by necessity.

The court found the respondent's historical use was permissive and that he had alternate access via an unbuilt road allowance.

The court granted the applicant's request to close the road but suspended the enforcement of the order until December 31, 2020, to allow the respondent time to construct a new driveway.