Anthony H. Little

This decision addresses costs following a nine-day trial primarily concerning parenting issues.

The applicant (father) was found to be more successful on the primary residence issue but not on decision-making responsibility, resulting in divided success.

Both parties engaged in unreasonable behaviour, including family violence and financial abuse by the father, and non-disclosure and impaired driving by the mother.

The court considered the divided success, the unreasonable conduct of both parties, and the mother's limited financial resources (ODSP benefits).

Despite the father's claim for $105,000, the court awarded a modest costs award of $7,000, payable in installments, finding it just and reasonable given all factors.

The parties separated in 2018 and had been following a week-about parenting schedule for their child, despite the mother relocating to Innisfil and the father remaining in London.

At trial, the mother sought an order for the child to alternate residences annually, while the father sought primary residence.

The court found the mother's proposal would be disruptive and not in the child's best interests.

Considering the mother's history of impaired driving (including an incident with the child in the car) and the father's history of family violence, the court ordered joint decision-making responsibility and primary residence with the father, with strict conditions on the mother's parenting time regarding alcohol and drug use.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which found him incompetent, revoked his certificate of registration, and ordered him to pay costs.

The Committee found the appellant had failed to maintain the standard of practice, engaged in professional misconduct by falsifying patient charts, and lacked insight into his deficiencies.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Committee's findings on incompetence, the penalty of revocation, and the costs award were reasonable and supported by the evidentiary record.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 1996 child support order, seeking retroactive child support, ongoing support for an adult child in full-time studies, and contribution to section 7 expenses.

The respondent had failed to provide income disclosure for several years and had received a grievance settlement after his employment was terminated.

The court ordered ongoing child support, fixed arrears at $12,500.40 retroactive to 2006 (including the grievance settlement in his income), ordered contribution to section 7 expenses, and required the respondent to maintain life insurance.

The applicant was awarded $10,000 in costs due to the respondent's failure to make timely financial disclosure.

The respondent husband brought a motion for interim spousal support despite a marriage contract containing mutual waivers of support.

The applicant wife opposed the motion, arguing the contract barred support.

The court applied the Miglin framework and found a triable issue regarding the enforceability of the contract, noting the husband lacked independent legal advice and signed it two days before the wedding.

The court imputed an income of $15,000 to the husband and ordered the wife to pay $600 per month in interim spousal support and maintain his health benefits.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary an ex parte interim custody order that had granted custody of his two children to their maternal uncle following the mother's suicide.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found that the children had a strong bond with their father and expressed a clear preference to live with him.

Despite the uncle providing a stable home and the father having a dated criminal record, the court concluded that reuniting the children with their natural parent was in their best interests.

The motion was granted, and interim custody was awarded to the father.

A contested guardianship application was brought under the Substitute Decisions Act regarding an adult incapable person who suffered a catastrophic hemorrhagic stroke resulting in permanent disability and the need for 24‑hour care.

The incapable person’s sister applied to be appointed guardian of personal care and property, while the spouse and adult children brought a counter‑application seeking guardianship and relocation of the incapable person closer to them.

The court considered the best interests of the incapable person and the statutory considerations under ss. 66(6) and 66(7) of the Substitute Decisions Act concerning maintaining supportive family contact and consultation.

Evidence demonstrated longstanding separation between the spouses, limited involvement by the spouse in the incapable person’s medical care since the prior guardianship appointment, and significant conflict between the spouse and the existing guardian.

The court concluded that the sister was best positioned to manage the incapable person’s care and property while fostering family contact, and appointed her as guardian.

The appellant father appealed a judgment dismissing his motion for an order compelling the return of his child to Toronto.

He argued the motion judge failed to consider the best interests of the child, demonstrated bias, and he sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal rejected the arguments regarding the best interests of the child and bias, finding no support on the record.

The court also declined to admit the fresh evidence, concluding it would not have altered the outcome.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The appellant was charged in separate informations with assault causing bodily harm (indictable) and assault (summary).

At trial, defence counsel suggested dealing with both charges at once, and the Crown consented.

The appellant was convicted of both charges.

He appealed, arguing the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to try separate informations together.

The Supreme Court of Canada reconsidered its previous rulings and held that a court has jurisdiction to try separate informations together, including a mix of summary and indictable offences, provided both the accused and the prosecution consent, and the accused waives the right to a preliminary inquiry and trial in a higher court.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant union was previously certified by the Board, but objecting employees were not given notice of the initial hearing.

The objecting employees argued this was a denial of natural justice and requested the proceedings be recommenced.

The Board held a second hearing to allow the objectors to make representations.

The Board found that the objectors' petition would not have affected the union's representative status even if given maximum weight.

As the objectors declined to call evidence or make substantive representations at the second hearing, the Board concluded any prejudice was cured and affirmed its decision to issue the certificates.