Bruce A. Gray

The court assessed costs following motions heard on March 13, 2017.

Both parties filed costs submissions, with Mr. Hill seeking substantial indemnity and Ms. Hill seeking partial or substantial indemnity.

The court applied the fundamental objectives of costs rules from Fong v. Chan and the fairness principle from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council.

Considering Family Law Rule 18 regarding offers to settle, the court found Mr. Hill to be the successful party, despite his offer not fully meeting the criteria for full recovery under Rule 18(14).

Costs were fixed at $6,500, all-inclusive, payable by Ms. Hill from her share of the matrimonial home proceeds.

In this family law dispute, the court addressed cross-motions for temporary orders and summary judgment.

The respondent, Ms. Hill, sought temporary sole custody, child/spousal support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The applicant, Mr. Hill, sought summary judgment for shared custody and the immediate sale of the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed Mr. Hill's summary judgment motion for custody and access, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, and also dismissed Ms. Hill's motion for exclusive possession, as the alleged conduct did not meet the threshold for "violence" under the Family Law Act.

The court granted temporary orders for primary residence of the child with Ms. Hill, generous access for Mr. Hill, and specific child and spousal support payments.

Crucially, the matrimonial home was ordered to be listed for sale, as Ms. Hill could not afford to retain it and no malicious or oppressive motive for sale was found.

The appellant applied for the appointment of the Public Guardian and Trustee as guardian of the property and persons of her two sisters.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding the allegations groundless and the evidence insufficient to support an order for a capacity assessment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's exercise of discretion.

The applicant union sought a single employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act following the closure of a unionized warehouse and the transfer of its work to a newly consolidated, non-unionized warehouse operated by a related corporate entity.

The responding parties conceded they carried on related activities under common control but argued against the declaration on the basis of employee wishes and corporate reorganization.

The Board granted the declaration, finding that the corporate reorganization incidentally undermined established bargaining rights and that the employer could not rely on the situation it created to deny the declaration.