Adriana Doyle

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for financial disclosure.

The applicant, Barbara Cohen, sought extensive financial disclosure from the Estate of Sidney Cohen and other parties, which the court found to be an attempt to circumvent a prior bifurcation order by Justice Audet.

The court dismissed the disclosure motion and subsequently awarded costs to the successful respondents and non-parties, including the Estate, Susan Charendoff, Brian Cohen, and several corporate non-parties.

The decision addresses the principles of costs, including partial indemnification, encouraging settlement, discouraging inappropriate behavior, and ensuring justice, while considering the reasonableness and proportionality of the requested amounts.

The court held a voir dire to determine the testimonial capacity of the applicant, Barbara Cohen, who suffers from mild dementia.

The respondents argued she had capacity, while her counsel argued she lacked it.

Based on expert reports from two geriatric specialists (Dr. Joel Sadavoy and Dr. Richard Shulman) and the court's own questioning of Barbara, the court found that the applicant lacked the capacity to testify due to inconsistent memory, difficulty communicating complex ideas, and potential for increased anxiety under cross-examination.

The court ruled that her previous questioning transcripts would be filed instead of compelling her live testimony.

This case involves cross-motions in a family law dispute concerning the recognition of a Turkish divorce decree, parenting arrangements (decision-making and time), child support, partition and sale of jointly owned property, a restraining order, determination of the date of separation, and financial disclosure sanctions.

The court declined to grant summary judgment on the recognition of the Turkish divorce and the date of separation, finding genuine issues requiring a trial.

Interim orders were made, granting the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence in Rockland, ordering the children to attend Rockland Public School, increasing the father's parenting time, maintaining the existing child support, and ordering the sale of the jointly owned property.

The requests for a restraining order and a fine for non-disclosure were dismissed, with the father given an extension to file financial statements.

The plaintiff, Debbie Lee Wilson, claimed damages for injuries sustained from a slip and fall in a mall parking lot, fracturing her right elbow.

She sued the property manager and snow removal contractor for negligence under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The court found the defendants negligent for failing to apply salt in a timely manner, creating a dangerous icy surface.

The plaintiff was found 25% contributorily negligent for not taking special precautions despite being aware of winter conditions.

Damages were awarded for general damages, past loss of income, future housekeeping/lawn maintenance, and future care costs, reduced by the plaintiff's contributory negligence.

The applicant sought various forms of relief, including damages for family violence, child support, special expenses, advance costs for tort claims, and a restraining order against the primary respondent, who did not participate in the proceedings.

The court granted orders consolidating claims, adjusting child support obligations, ordering advance costs, compelling non-party document production, and issuing a restraining order.

Costs were awarded against the non-participating respondent.

This is a costs endorsement following a 9-day family law trial.

Both parties sought costs, with the applicant (wife) seeking partial indemnity and the respondent (husband) seeking full indemnity.

The court found that there was divided success on the issues and that both parties contributed to the costs and delays of the trial, including issues with financial disclosure and engagement with Requests to Admit.

Neither party's offers to settle engaged Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

Consequently, the court ordered no costs, with each party bearing their own.

The applicants sought an order under the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act to retain land on which their garage encroached, believing it was their own.

The respondents sought summary judgment dismissing the application, arguing adverse possession was not established and the Act did not apply.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, confirmed no adverse possession, and applied s. 37(1) of the CLPA, granting the applicants the right to retain the encroached land upon payment of fair compensation to the respondents.

The plaintiffs brought a multi-faceted motion seeking to dismiss the defendants' anti-SLAPP application, strike affidavits, compel re-attendance for cross-examination, compel answers to undertakings, compel the examination of a witness, and compel document production related to a legal opinion and general inspection.

The court declined to hear the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the anti-SLAPP application, finding it was barred by res judicata and issue estoppel.

The court ordered a witness to re-attend cross-examination, for undertakings to be fulfilled, and for a revised document list to be provided.

The request to examine another witness was adjourned.

The court did not rule on the implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege regarding certain documents due to an insufficient evidentiary record, but allowed the parties to return for a discrete hearing on this issue.

The defendants were reminded to comply with general document disclosure.

On a statutory appeal from a License Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision, the insurer challenged a ruling that an injured dirt bike rider was entitled to statutory accident benefits.

The court held there was no legal error in allocating onus to the insurer on the narrow exemption issue and no reversible error in applying the Adams framework.

Interpreting s. 2(1)5 of O. Reg. 863 purposively and contextually, the court agreed that motorcycle-association sponsorship applies to both closed course competitions and rallies, so the exemption did not apply on the record.

Although the reconsideration reasons improperly referenced a document outside the hearing record, the court found no procedural unfairness because that reference did not affect the ultimate analysis.

The appeal and the insurer’s fresh-evidence motion were dismissed, with costs to the respondent.

The court heard two openness applications regarding a young child with special needs who was placed for adoption.

The birth father sought monthly in-person contact, while the Office of the Children's Lawyer and the Children's Aid Society supported two visits per year.

The court considered the child's best interests, the need for stability in the adoptive home, and the adoptive parents' ability to comply with the order.

The court ordered a minimum of three in-person openness contacts per year between the child and the birth father, which may include the paternal grandmother.

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 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.