Any Mayer

The defendant, Andre Bluteau, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff, Julie Caron's, action for negligent legal advice.

Bluteau argued that Caron had signed a Full and Final Release covering all claims, including the negligence claim.

Caron contended that she only intended to release claims for costs and relied on doctrines of non est factum and duress, alleging verbal assurances that the release would not preclude a future negligence action.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation to the Release, finding its terms clear and unequivocal.

The court dismissed Caron's hearsay evidence regarding verbal assurances and found no basis for non est factum or duress, as she had legal representation and ample time to consider the terms.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the plaintiff's claim.

The parties separated and the mother subsequently denied the father access to their three children following allegations that he and his mother physically assaulted the oldest child.

The father, who was criminally charged regarding the oldest child, sought interim access to the two younger children.

The mother argued access should be supervised pending a child protection investigation.

The court found no evidence of risk to the younger children and ordered graduated, unsupervised interim access for the father.

This trial concerned custody and access to the parties' child, Pyper.

The father sought sole custody and limited access, citing the mother's history of drug addiction, mental illness, and alleged refusal to acknowledge the child's special needs.

The mother sought joint custody and a gradually increasing access schedule, asserting her recovery and ability to co-parent.

The court found the mother had made significant gains in her recovery and granted joint custody, emphasizing the child's best interests require both parents' involvement.

A gradual increase in the mother's access was ordered, with specific schedules for regular parenting time and holidays, and provisions for ongoing drug testing for the mother.

The mother was substantially successful on the father's motion to change child support and sought full indemnity costs.

The court reviewed the parties' behaviour, time spent, and offers to settle under the Family Law Rules.

The mother had made an offer to settle that was more favourable to the father than the final decision, entitling her to full recovery costs from the date of the offer.

The court awarded the mother $13,000 in fees plus disbursements and HST, and ordered that the costs be deemed as additional support enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.

The father brought a motion to change a final consent order for child support, which stated it would not be varied 'for any reason whatsoever'.

He argued that the children's circumstances had changed, as one child had finished university and started working, and the other had moved to British Columbia for university.

The court dismissed the motion to change support, finding that these changes were reasonably contemplated at the time the original order was made and therefore did not constitute a material change in circumstances.

The court did grant orders requiring the mother to pay her share of tuition at the beginning of each semester and allowing the father to remove the older child from his life insurance policy.

The plaintiff, Paramjit Singh, and the defendant, Shoppers Home Health Care (Ontario) Inc., each sought costs following a four-week jury trial.

The jury found Shoppers liable for Mr. Singh's injuries but also found Mr. Singh 75% contributorily negligent, resulting in a total award of approximately $73,000, which was less favorable than Shoppers' Rule 49.10 settlement offer of $100,000.

The court determined that Shoppers' global offer to multiple plaintiffs (Mr. Singh and his family with FLA claims) was valid and triggered Rule 49.10 cost consequences.

The court then assessed Mr. Singh's partial indemnity costs up to the offer date and Shoppers' partial indemnity costs from that date to the end of trial, considering factors under Rule 57.01.

Despite Mr. Singh's success on liability, his low recovery and high contributory negligence meant the Rule 49.10 offer was beaten.

The court ultimately concluded that the allowable costs for both parties were effectively equivalent ($131,633 for Mr. Singh and $128,500-$138,500 for Shoppers) and declined to order costs payable by either party.

This application concerned a dispute over financial disclosure in an ongoing arbitration for child support.

The applicant sought an order compelling the respondent and 31 corporate entities in which he held an interest to produce financial disclosure as per a consent arbitration award.

The respondent cross-applied to be released from the arbitration or to remove the arbitrator due to alleged bias and unfair procedure.

The court dismissed the respondent's requests, finding no grounds for bias or release from arbitration, and granted the applicant's request for disclosure from all respondents, emphasizing the importance of full disclosure in family law matters and the children's entitlement to support.

Following an 11-day family law trial where the respondent father was entirely successful in preventing the applicant mother from relocating to Austria with their child, the respondent sought costs of $105,677.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, the applicant's bad faith conduct including false allegations of abuse, and the principles of proportionality.

The court fixed the respondent's costs at $75,000.

Furthermore, the court held it had jurisdiction to set off the costs award against the respondent's spousal support obligations, ordering a set-off against any arrears and $1,500 per month from ongoing spousal support.

Following a trial decision, the parties delivered written costs submissions.

The applicant asserted that the respondent's offers to settle were withdrawn prior to trial and were not received until they were appended to the costs submissions.

The court directed the respondent to serve and file proof of service of any offers to settle relied upon, as well as evidence showing whether and when any such offer was withdrawn.

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking retroactive child support and modifications to the parenting plan.

The parties settled most issues but left the determination of child support for 2015-2016 and costs to the court.

The applicant had taken a five-month unpaid leave of absence in 2015 to care for her ill father and husband, resulting in a significant drop in her income.

The court applied the Drygala test and found the applicant was intentionally under-employed, as her leave was not due to her own health or the needs of a dependent child.

The court imputed an income of $85,000 to the applicant and calculated the set-off child support amount, resulting in $72 in arrears owed by the respondent.

The court also awarded $4,500 in costs to the respondent due to the applicant's unreasonable conduct and disproportionate litigation approach.

The applicant mother sought to permanently relocate to Vienna, Austria with the parties' four-year-old child.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought sole custody.

The mother had previously withheld the child in Vienna, resulting in a Hague Convention order for the child's return.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework and found that relocation was not in the child's best interests, as it would severely disrupt the child's relationship with the father.

The court granted sole custody to the father with a 50/50 shared parenting schedule, finding the mother had repeatedly used the child as leverage and restricted the father's access.

The court also imputed minimum wage income to the mother for the purposes of calculating child and spousal support, and ordered spousal support to terminate in January 2019.

Following a family law trial regarding the applicant's proposed relocation with the child to Austria, the applicant's counsel wrote to the court advising that the respondent would be relocating to Switzerland for employment.

The applicant requested the opportunity to make additional written submissions before the trial decision was rendered.

The respondent opposed this request.

The court declined to consider the post-trial correspondence, stating that the forthcoming decision would be based solely on the sworn evidence received at trial.

The respondent moved for interim spousal support.

Entitlement was not in dispute, only the amount.

The respondent sought $7,656.00 per month, arguing for an imputed income of $210,000.00 to the applicant and no income to herself.

The applicant proposed $3,000.00 per month, based on his declared salary of $84,900.00 and an imputed income of $20,000.00 to the respondent.

The court found it inappropriate for interim relief to impute the full retained earnings of the applicant's partially-owned farm business but recognized his real income was higher than his salary.

A modest income of $5,000.00 per year was imputed to the respondent due to her failure to provide evidence of inability to work.

The court ordered temporary spousal support of $3,800.00 per month, taxable to the recipient and deductible by the payor, effective January 1, 2017.

This interim order was made without prejudice to findings at trial.

In a supplementary decision regarding costs of a Hague Convention application, the court clarified the timing for the payment of costs.

The mother argued that the costs should be payable at the end of the litigation to allow for a potential set-off.

The father argued that pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure, costs of an interlocutory order are payable within 30 days.

The court agreed with the father, finding that the Family Law Rules do not adequately cover the timing of interlocutory costs payments, and applied Rule 57.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The mother was ordered to pay the previously fixed costs of $13,267.84 within 30 days of the original costs decision, with interest.

The court determined the costs of a successful Hague Convention application brought by the father for the return of his child.

The father sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, totaling $18,847.78.

The mother opposed, arguing the application was unnecessary and based on false pretenses.

The court affirmed its prior decision to award costs to the father, finding he was entirely successful and acted in good faith, while the mother acted unreasonably in failing to return the child and challenging the return order.

Considering factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court fixed the father's costs at $13,267.84.

The father brought a motion to change a 2001 child support order, seeking to terminate support for his three adult children.

The mother brought a cross-motion for retroactive child support and section 7 expenses.

The court found that the youngest child, who was pursuing a master's degree, remained a child of the marriage, but reduced basic child support to the four summer months when he lived at home.

Applying the D.B.S. framework, the court ordered retroactive child support and section 7 expenses back to October 2007 due to the father's blameworthy conduct in refusing to pay and failing to disclose income increases.

The court declined to impute income to the father, finding his recent unemployment was involuntary.

The father was ordered to pay $68,362.77 in net arrears.

This decision concerns a costs award following two motions in a family law matter.

The Applicant father sought various orders including joint custody, a parenting schedule, travel arrangements, and support, while the Respondent mother sought urgent travel to Japan with the child.

Many issues were resolved by consent, but the parenting schedule and costs remained contentious.

The court found the Applicant largely successful, noting the Respondent's unreasonable delay in consenting to previously offered terms and her conduct regarding conflicting travel dates.

The Respondent was ordered to pay $8,750.00 in costs to the Applicant, in addition to a prior $500 award, with the quantum influenced by her financial position.

The applicant father brought a motion to change seeking child support after one of the parties' two children moved primarily into his care and he lost his employment.

The respondent mother opposed, claiming undue hardship and seeking retroactive support based on the father's previously undisclosed higher income.

The court found a material change in circumstance but imputed income to the father, finding his career change resulted in underemployment.

After considering the shared custody framework under s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines and the parties' financial circumstances, the court rejected a strict set-off and ordered the mother to pay $750 per month, while also calculating retroactive arrears owed by both parties.

The applicant, a former step-parent, brought a contempt motion alleging the biological father failed to comply with a temporary access order granting the applicant access to his former step‑children.

The court reviewed multiple missed or rescheduled visits and the parties’ communications following the order.

Applying the three‑part contempt test, the court held the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the father deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the order.

The court emphasized that contempt in family proceedings is a remedy of last resort and found the applicant should have pursued enforcement or case conference remedies instead.

The contempt motion was dismissed and no costs were awarded.

Following a motion in which the applicant obtained interim spousal support, the court determined costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant sought $10,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the respondent acted unreasonably in denying entitlement to spousal support.

The court held the respondent’s unsuccessful legal argument did not amount to bad faith or unreasonable conduct.

Applying the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs and considering proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded partial indemnity costs.