Bloom

The accused, a youthful offender, was sentenced for his participation in a bank robbery where approximately $100,000 remained unrecovered.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary term, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with the accused's rehabilitative prospects, the court imposed a custodial sentence of 18 months less pre-trial custody credit, along with a $50,000 restitution order and ancillary orders.

Following a ruling on cross-motions where the applicant was ordered to pay substantial indemnity costs, the court received written submissions on quantum.

The respondent sought $22,326.46, while the applicant argued for no costs or $2,500.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, the court fixed costs at $15,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes, payable within 30 days.

Following a motion where the applicant was permitted to amend the application, the respondent was unsuccessful on disclosure, and neither party obtained an advance of funds, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought $2,073.06 and the respondent sought $17,500.00.

Considering the mixed success and the parties' offers, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent costs of $3,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

The applicant moved for an advance on funds held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home, leave to amend his application, and disclosure of a deed and survey for the respondent's property in Sri Lanka.

The respondent also requested an advance from the trust funds.

The court dismissed both requests for an advance, finding it could not determine a minimum equalization payment on the record.

The court granted the applicant leave to amend his application, conditional on paying costs, and ordered the respondent to produce the deed and survey for the Sri Lankan property to facilitate a previously ordered appraisal.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding child access.

The applicant mother sought to hold the respondent father in contempt and vary access to supervised access, while the respondent sought to expand access or remedy the applicant's denial of access.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, noting a Children's Aid Society letter stating the children were not in need of protection and wished to see the respondent.

The court found neither party proved a material change in circumstances to vary the existing access orders.

However, the court found the applicant had denied access without a lawful basis and ordered her to comply immediately, awarding substantial indemnity costs to the respondent.

The moving parties (defendants) sought an order requiring the plaintiff to re-attend an examination for discovery to answer questions regarding damages, mitigation, and governmental land regulation issues.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing it was a delaying tactic.

The court partially granted the motion, ordering the plaintiff to re-attend for two hours to be examined on the issue of damages, finding it proportionate given the $300,000 claim.

However, the court declined to order further examination on the governmental land regulation documentation, as it was not satisfied the plaintiff could provide relevant evidence on that matter.

The moving party (respondent in the main proceeding) sought an adjournment of his own motion because the counsel working on the file had left the firm and new counsel was not ready.

The court granted the adjournment on terms, setting a peremptory return date and prohibiting the filing of further materials other than authorities.

The court awarded the responding party $4,500 in costs thrown away, payable within 30 days, failing which the responding party could move to dismiss the motion.

Following the applicant's substantial success on the merits, the court addressed the issue of costs.

Despite the respondent seeking costs against the applicant, the court awarded costs to the applicant based on her success.

The respondent was ordered to pay $3,200 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes within 60 days.

The applicant sought full recovery or substantial indemnity costs following a family law decision.

The respondents sought full recovery costs or no costs, citing limited means and divided success.

The court found the applicant was substantially successful despite divided success on an access order.

Taking into account the financial resources of one respondent and the limited role of the other, the court awarded the applicant $5,000 in inclusive costs, apportioned between the two respondents.

Following a decision on the merits, both the applicant and respondent sought costs of $15,000 against the other.

The court found that neither party was substantially successful, despite both investing considerable time and expense.

Consequently, the court ordered that costs be in the cause.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a 2009 child support order.

The applicant mother responded and sought retroactive variation of child support and section 7 expenses for their two children.

Applying the D.B.S. framework, the court found the father failed to diligently adjust support to reflect his increased income and ordered retroactive variation effective April 2015.

The court declined to impute income to the father, calculating arrears based on the parties' tax assessments.

The father was ordered to pay $35,872.70 in total arrears for child support and section 7 expenses.

The parties brought cross-motions in a high-conflict family law dispute.

The applicant sought a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act, variation of interim parenting orders, and an order dispensing with the respondent's consent for child counselling.

The respondent sought variation of the interim parenting orders.

The court ordered a section 112 investigation under the Courts of Justice Act on consent and dismissed the section 30 assessment request due to the parties' financial constraints.

The court dismissed both parties' motions to vary the interim parenting orders, finding neither established a material change in circumstances under the Gordon v. Goertz test.

The request to dispense with consent for counselling was also dismissed.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to vary a prior order that restricted his child from being in the presence of his life partner.

The applicant sought the variation because he and his partner were setting up a new household where the child would have overnight access.

The court found that the creation of the new household constituted a material change in circumstances that was not previously contemplated.

Concluding that it was in the child's best interests to have maximum contact with her father, the court granted the motion and varied the order to remove the restriction.

The applicant sought an uncontested divorce based on affidavit evidence.

The court dismissed the application without prejudice because the applicant failed to file a clearance certificate as required by Rule 36(4) of the Family Law Rules, failed to provide clear evidence regarding the respondent's prior marital status under Rule 36(5), and omitted the commissioning date on the amended affidavit.

The court also noted the requirements under section 12 of the Divorce Act for granting an earlier effective date for a divorce.

Following a jury conviction for importing cocaine, a Gardiner hearing was held to determine the quantum of cocaine imported by the accused for sentencing purposes.

The Crown asserted the accused imported four containers of cocaine, while the defense argued the containers might have been mixed up with those from a simultaneous investigation of another individual.

The court found the testimony of the border services officers credible and reliable, concluding the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four containers, totaling 1.955 kilograms of cocaine, were seized from the accused's luggage.

The applicant moved for an interim order for the partition and sale of a jointly owned property and for interim spousal support.

The parties cohabited for several years, during which the respondent financially supported the applicant while he obtained his degrees.

The court dismissed the motion for partition and sale, finding that a trial was necessary to determine the parties' respective beneficial interests in the property, especially given the imminent trial date.

The court granted the motion for interim spousal support on a needs basis, ordering the respondent to pay $1,458 per month retroactive to the date the application was served, but declined to order the respondent to secure the support with a life insurance policy.

The parties separated after a marriage that began in 2004.

At trial, the sole issue was the equalization of net family properties under section 5 of the Family Law Act.

The court determined the valuation date to be February 9, 2014, when the applicant returned from a trip to find the respondent had left their apartment.

After assessing the credibility of the parties and valuing their respective assets and debts, the court calculated the applicant's net family property at zero and the respondent's at $6,886.00.

The court rejected the applicant's argument that an equal division would be unconscionable under section 5(6) and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $3,443.00.

The moving party, a defendant in multiple actions arising from a fatal motor vehicle collision, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claims against him.

The collision occurred when the respondent lost control of his vehicle while attempting to pass and crossed into the moving party's lane.

The moving party relied on expert evidence suggesting his reaction time was within normal limits, while the respondents relied on expert evidence arguing he braked late.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting expert evidence and its admissibility required a full trial with viva voce evidence and cross-examination to justly determine liability.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding spousal support, child support, and section 7 expenses.

He argued the trial judge erred by imputing income based on his rental income without deducting the expenses incurred to earn that income, and by failing to apply the shared custody provisions of the Child Support Guidelines.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge's failure to address the rental expenses contained in the appellant's tax returns constituted a significant misapprehension of evidence and an error in principle.

The court ordered a new trial to determine the appellant's income, spousal support, child support, and section 7 expenses.

The applicant brought an application seeking damages for wrongful dismissal and unpaid RRSP contributions, arguing he was terminated without cause and entitled to three months' severance under his employment contract.

The respondent employer argued the termination was for just cause due to the applicant's abusive behaviour towards subordinates, and sought to have the application converted to an action and dismissed via summary judgment.

The court found that material facts regarding the alleged misconduct were in dispute and required credibility assessments that could not be resolved on a paper record.

Consequently, the court ordered the entire application to proceed to trial.