Angela Daniels

Following a trial concerning the ownership of two real estate properties and a vehicle, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice determined the issue of costs.

The respondents, who were entirely successful at trial, sought full recovery costs of approximately $110,000 for the entire proceeding.

Justice Audet found that the applicant's claims lacked merit, her litigation conduct was unreasonable, and she had rejected multiple favorable settlement offers.

Consequently, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondents costs in the amount of $50,000.

This trial addressed the beneficial ownership of two real estate properties and a vehicle in a family law context.

The applicant spouse claimed a beneficial interest, asserting the assets were gifts from the respondent spouse and his parents.

The respondents contended that the assets were held in trust for the parents, who provided all funds, and that title was placed in the names of the spouses for practical reasons related to immigration and insurance, without any intent to gift.

The court applied the presumption of resulting trust, finding that the applicant failed to rebut this presumption.

The court concluded that the respondent parents were the sole beneficial owners of all three assets.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking an interim order for shared or increased parenting time and joint decision-making responsibility for the parties' three children, along with co-parenting counselling.

The applicant mother opposed, alleging the father was neglectful and citing the two eldest children's wishes for limited time with him.

The court found it in the children's best interests to transition gradually to shared parenting with joint decision-making.

The court did not accept the mother's claims of neglect and found her unilateral conduct had contributed to the deterioration of the father-child relationship.

The motion was granted in favour of the father, with orders for counselling for the father and children, and co-parenting counselling for both parents.

Both parties brought motions for interim relief in a family law proceeding.

The mother sought sole decision-making, retroactive child support, and orders regarding passports and photographs.

The father sought equal parenting time, alleging parental alienation by the mother.

The court declined to make an interim order for decision-making or to change the parenting schedule, finding insufficient evidence of parental alienation at the interim stage.

The court ordered the father to sign passport renewals and return certain photographs, while leaving the issue of retroactive child support to the trial judge.

The parties were involved in a high-conflict separation with allegations of abuse and parental alienation.

The mother sought interim parenting time, while the father sought sole decision-making responsibility.

The court found it premature to make parenting orders pending an Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation and ordered reunification therapy.

The court also ordered the mother to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, while ordering the father to pay retroactive and ongoing interim spousal support.

Section 7 expenses were ordered to be shared proportionally to income.

The parties sought costs following a series of interim motions dealing with custody, access, child and spousal support, and other issues.

The applicant mother sought up to $48,506 in costs, while the respondent father sought up to $35,846.

The court found the mother was largely successful on the main issues, including obtaining interim sole custody and imputing income to the father, though the father had some success on minor issues.

Noting unreasonable behavior by both parties, a lack of offers to settle, and excessive time claimed by the mother's counsel, the court awarded the mother costs fixed at $8,000.