Antal Joeseph Bakaity

This is a costs decision following a six-day trial on a motion to change dealing with custody and access of a child.

The applicant was primarily successful at trial and had served an Offer to Settle that was not accepted by the respondents.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, considering the applicant's success, the Offer to Settle, the respondents' unreasonable positions at trial, and the respondents' modest financial means.

The court rejected arguments that the respondents' financial circumstances should shield them from a costs award, while still moderating the quantum to reflect fairness and reasonableness.

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.

A costs endorsement following motions heard on December 21, 2016, in a family law matter.

The applicant mother sought to vary an existing access order to provide for supervised access and specific telephone access terms.

The respondent father sought to expand his access and remove conditions.

The court granted the applicant's relief in part and denied the respondent's motion entirely.

The applicant sought costs of $4,977.67 on a partial recovery basis, while the respondent agreed costs should be awarded but proposed $1,500.00.

The court awarded costs of $3,700.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable in three instalments over time, considering the respondent's financial circumstances and the reasonableness of the time and expenses incurred.

The applicant mother sought to implement recommendations from an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) report, including sole custody and supervised access for the respondent father.

The respondent father sought to expand his unsupervised access and remove conditions from an existing temporary order.

The court found exceptional circumstances existed warranting implementation of supervised access and restricted telephone contact recommendations, but denied the mother's request for sole custody and other non-access relief.

The father's motion for expanded unsupervised access was also denied.

The applicant father sought to reduce child support payments following his termination from employment in August 2013.

The respondent mother sought a retroactive increase in table child support and arrears of section 7 expenses.

The court found a material change in circumstances and imputed income to the father of $47,750 annually (actual retirement income of $37,750 plus $10,000 for consulting work), resulting in table child support of $431 per month from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020.

The court awarded arrears of $1,272 for table child support and $1,857.35 for section 7 expenses (tutoring only), payable at $150 per month.

The court also awarded costs of $2,500 to the respondent for obtaining proper disclosure.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of child pornography, arguing the trial judge erred in finding he had knowledge of the nature of the images in a deleted folder on his computer.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding it was a logical inference that the appellant knew the criminal nature of the files since he specifically sought them out to delete them before a police visit.

The court also rejected the argument that the conviction for possession was inconsistent with his acquittal for accessing child pornography, as the two verdicts were based on different evidence.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision that dismissed his motion to strike the respondent's claim as statute-barred and struck his statement of defence.

The dispute involved a $16,000 promissory note for a tractor purchase.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's application to introduce fresh evidence.

However, the court found the Deputy Judge made a palpable and overriding error by failing to explain how conflicting evidence regarding the date of the parties' last contact was resolved, which was crucial for determining when a demand was made under the Limitations Act.

The appeal was allowed in part, the order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to Small Claims Court for trial.

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.