Antal Bakaity

Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion to set aside a noting in default, the successful responding parties sought their costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the responding parties, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from the general rule under Rule 57.03 that the successful party on a motion is entitled to costs payable forthwith.

The moving party defendant sought to set aside a noting in default and to strike an affidavit she had previously sworn.

The underlying action arose from an ATV accident where the moving party was the driver and the plaintiff was a passenger.

The moving party had previously sworn an affidavit claiming ownership of the ATV, leading to the dismissal of the action against her common-law spouse.

After the plaintiff's claim was settled by the insurers, they sought subrogation against the moving party, who then claimed she had lied about owning the ATV to protect her spouse's assets.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the noting in default, finding that doing so would cause substantial prejudice to the innocent insurers who had relied on her representations.

The request to strike the affidavit was also dismissed as moot and inappropriate for a preliminary motion.

The applicants challenged the validity of their late father's 2015 Will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity, suspicious circumstances, and undue influence by his common-law spouse, the respondent.

The testator executed the new Will shortly after a terminal cancer diagnosis, leaving his half-interest in the jointly owned home to the respondent, while his children still received his RRSPs and vehicle.

The court declined to convert the application to a trial, finding the documentary record sufficient.

The court held that the applicants failed to rebut the presumption of testamentary capacity, as the circumstances surrounding the Will's execution were not suspicious and there was no evidence of undue influence.

The application was dismissed and the 2015 Will was declared valid.

The applicant sought a declaration that she was the sole beneficial owner of a property legally owned by the respondent, her friend, to prevent the respondent's former spouse from selling the property to enforce a family law judgment.

The applicant claimed an oral agreement existed where the respondent held the property in trust because she could not obtain a mortgage.

The court found insufficient evidence of a 100% trust but determined that both parties contributed to the purchase price.

Applying the presumption of a purchase money resulting trust, the court declared the applicant held a 60% interest and the respondent held a 40% interest in the property.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay and for failure to abide by a court order.

The action arose from a 2009 slip and fall and a 2009 motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff failed to meet any of the deadlines set out in a 2015 timetable order and provided no reasonable explanation for the delay.

The court found the delay to be inordinate and inexcusable, giving rise to a presumption of prejudice that the plaintiff failed to rebut.

The court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the action under both Rule 24.01 and Rule 60.12.

Following a two‑day family law trial dealing primarily with retroactive and ongoing spousal and child support and income imputation, the court addressed costs.

The court reviewed the parties’ competing offers to settle under the Family Law Rules and determined that the respondent at trial had been largely successful because her offers were closer to the ultimate support outcome and she sought spousal support where the other party had offered none.

Allegations of unreasonable conduct were raised by both sides but the court found neither party’s conduct sufficient to disentitle costs.

In assessing quantum, the court excluded costs for conferences where costs were not reserved and reduced excessive preparation time claimed for trial.

Partial recovery costs of $18,000 were awarded.

Following a marriage breakdown involving a self‑employed lawn irrigation contractor, the court addressed disputed income, child support, spousal support, and a parenting travel request.

The parties accused each other of manipulating or concealing income during and after the marriage.

The court found deficiencies in financial disclosure and applied the Child Support Guidelines to impute income to both parties, rejecting some claimed business deductions and attributing additional income including cash components.

Support obligations were recalculated retroactively and prospectively, with arrears fixed and ongoing differential child and spousal support ordered.

The court also permitted the child to travel unaccompanied to Poland for a month to visit the applicant’s family, finding the trip in the child’s best interests.

The mother brought a motion to change the father's access to their two children from unsupervised to supervised, and to dispense with his consent for the children to travel outside Canada.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking to use his share of the matrimonial home's sale proceeds to pay his criminal defence costs.

The court dismissed the mother's request for supervised access, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify restricting the father's access, but ordered that access exchanges occur through a third party or supervised access centre to minimize conflict.

The court granted the mother permission to travel with the children subject to notice requirements.

The father's request to use the sale proceeds for his legal defence was dismissed, as the funds were needed to secure his future child support obligations.