Barry H. Matheson

Following an earlier endorsement finding negligence in the prosecution of the action and ending the proceeding against the defendants, the defendants sought costs of $5,535.87.

The court considered the conduct of the plaintiff and counsel, including procedural errors and inadequate explanation for improperly placing the matter on the trial list.

The court also considered settlement correspondence regarding costs exchanged after the earlier endorsement.

While finding the plaintiff’s conduct warranted sanction, the court held the defendants’ request for more than double their earlier settlement proposal was excessive.

Costs were awarded to the defendants in the reduced amount of $2,500 inclusive.

At a Rule 48.14 status hearing in a civil action, the defendant appeared but no one appeared for the plaintiff.

The record showed repeated requests by the defendant for an amended statement of claim and particulars following an earlier judicial decision, but the plaintiff’s counsel failed to provide them in a timely manner.

The court found that the delay in advancing the action was largely attributable to the plaintiff’s counsel.

Although the court acknowledged it had authority to dismiss the action for delay, it declined to do so in order to avoid punishing the plaintiff for counsel’s conduct.

Instead, the court ordered the plaintiff’s counsel to provide a compliant amended pleading, particulars, and to engage in scheduling discussions, and directed that a further hearing address costs arising from the delay.

The plaintiff moved under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing the action as abandoned and to restore the action.

The proceeding had been commenced by notice of action but no statement of claim was filed within the required 30 days and the notice of action had been served without the statement of claim contrary to Rule 14.03.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the extensive delay, including a two‑year delay after learning of the dismissal order before bringing the motion.

Applying the factors governing restoration of dismissed actions, the court found inadequate explanation of delay, insufficient evidence of inadvertence, and failure to bring the motion promptly.

The request to add individual police officers as defendants was also barred by the limitation period.

Following separation and a separation agreement, the parties resolved most issues except child support adjustments and section 7 special or extraordinary expenses for the child’s soccer and hockey activities.

The court interpreted the separation agreement as requiring annual child support adjustments prospectively, with no provision for retroactive payments.

The court considered whether the claimed sports-related expenses qualified as extraordinary expenses under s. 7(1.1) of the Child Support Guidelines.

It held that expenses exceeding basic fees, including equipment, travel, accommodation, and meals associated with competitive participation, could qualify as s. 7 extraordinary expenses.

These expenses were to be shared proportionately based on the parties’ respective incomes.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a prior custody order that had granted custody of the child to the mother.

At the time of the hearing, the 16‑year‑old child had been residing with the father under interim orders and wished to remain in his care and continue attending his current school.

Evidence from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer supported the child’s expressed preference and indicated no interference by the father with the child’s relationship with the mother.

The court held that the child’s wishes, maturity, and stability supported a final order granting custody to the father, with access to the mother subject to the child’s concerns.

The court also indicated that the mother should pay child support but lacked sufficient financial disclosure to determine the amount.

Following an 11‑day family law trial primarily concerning ownership of a barn and chicken production quotas registered in the respondent’s name, the court determined costs.

The respondent had been successful on the principal property issues, which drove the length and expense of the litigation, while the applicant had advanced a hard-line position seeking ownership of those assets.

The court considered Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and assessed the parties’ conduct, complexity of issues, time spent, and reasonableness of positions.

Although the respondent sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $233,000, the court limited recovery to partial indemnity due to non‑compliance with Rule 18 concerning offers to settle.

After reducing certain legal accounts for duplication of work, the court ordered the applicant to pay costs of $123,884.40.

Following multiple prior orders in a corporate dispute between business partners, the successful party sought costs on a full indemnity basis due to the opposing party’s repeated non‑compliance with court orders and obstructive conduct.

The court reviewed the governing factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the jurisprudence on when full indemnity costs are appropriate.

Although the respondent’s conduct caused delay and required numerous court appearances, the court found it did not rise to the egregious level required for full indemnity costs such as fraud or deception of the court.

Considering the respondent’s non‑compliance and litigation conduct, the court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

Costs were fixed at $20,431.14.

A family law proceeding concerning child support and repayment of an overpayment arising from earlier court orders.

The court considered the applicant’s income for multiple years and the respondent’s request for retroactive and ongoing child support for a university‑attending child primarily residing with the respondent.

The respondent sought amounts representing approximately 50% of the Child Support Guidelines table values and did not claim post‑secondary expenses.

The court accepted the requested amounts, ordered payment of the outstanding balance of a prior support overpayment with interest, and fixed costs payable to the respondent.