Bruno J. Sharpe

This costs endorsement addresses two motions brought by the Respondent, both dismissed with costs awarded to the Applicant.

The first motion challenged the court's jurisdiction over property claims, and the second sought leave to appeal an arbitrator’s email communication.

The court reviews the guiding legal principles for costs in family law, including reasonableness, proportionality, and bad faith.

The Applicant was awarded $48,500 for the jurisdiction motion and $16,500 for the leave motion, both payable within 30 days.

Le jugement porte sur la qualification des contributions financières faites par Sylvain Laplante à Karen Bellemare lors de leur relation de fait, notamment en lien avec l'achat et l'entretien d'une résidence.

Le tribunal conclut que les contributions de Laplante ne constituaient pas un loyer, mais donnaient plutôt ouverture à une fiducie résultoire et à une réparation pour enrichissement sans cause, en raison de l'absence d'intention de donation et de la contribution substantielle de Laplante à la mise de fonds et aux dépenses de la propriété.

La décision détaille les critères applicables à la fiducie résultoire, à l'enrichissement sans cause et à la coentreprise familiale, et fixe la compensation monétaire due.

The Appellant sought leave to appeal an arbitrator's email explanation regarding the costs of translating French documents to English, alleging an error of law and bias.

The Respondent opposed, arguing the motion was out of time, the right to appeal was misstated, the Appellant had consented to translations, there was no error of law, and no bias.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no right of appeal for an explanation note, no error of law by the arbitrator on a question not put to him, and that the arbitration agreement limited appeals to questions of law, which this was not.

The court also found no evidence of bias.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario determined that the appeal was not devoid of merit or frivolous, and there was no partial success or misconduct by the respondent.

Consequently, the respondent was awarded partial indemnity costs.

This appeal concerned the jurisdiction of the Ontario court in a family law dispute over parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and child support.

The appellant father argued that the motion judge erred in finding the child habitually resident in Ontario, claiming he did not tacitly consent or acquiesce to the child's move from Montreal to Ottawa.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that despite a minor error by the motion judge in considering post-application conduct, sufficient evidence supported the finding of the father's tacit consent or acquiescence to the child's habitual residence in Ontario.

The Respondent brought a motion disputing the Ontario Superior Court of Justice's jurisdiction over family law issues, including decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and child support, concerning the child O.R. The Applicant argued that Ontario had jurisdiction based on the child's habitual residence.

The court found that O.R. was habitually resident in Ontario at the time the application was filed, with the implied consent or acquiescence of the Respondent, thereby establishing the court's jurisdiction.

The applicant sought various forms of relief, including damages for family violence, child support, special expenses, advance costs for tort claims, and a restraining order against the primary respondent, who did not participate in the proceedings.

The court granted orders consolidating claims, adjusting child support obligations, ordering advance costs, compelling non-party document production, and issuing a restraining order.

Costs were awarded against the non-participating respondent.

The father sought an interim order for joint decision-making and increased parenting time for their child.

The mother opposed, arguing for the status quo based on her primary caregiver role and concerns about the father's work schedule and the child's reactions to transitions.

The court found that the father had not acquiesced to the current schedule, which was largely a result of the mother's unilateral actions.

The court granted the father's motion, ordering joint decision-making and a gradual increase in the father's parenting time towards a 50/50 week-on/week-off schedule, finding it to be in the child's best interests.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce interim without prejudice Minutes of Settlement requiring the respondent to pay spousal support of $1,697 per month.

The respondent had previously obtained a reduction to $776 per month on an interim basis due to a material change in circumstances arising from mental health issues and reduced working hours.

The court found sufficient medical evidence of a material change in circumstances, including a recent knee replacement surgery, to justify not enforcing the original settlement amount at this stage.

The motion was dismissed, and the reduced support order was continued pending further medical disclosure and a case conference.

On an interim family motion, the applicant sought retroactive and increased ongoing spousal support, and a determination of whether child support for an adult child had ended.

The court held that conflicting affidavit evidence and unresolved income issues made retroactive relief inappropriate on an interim record, particularly where the applicant was effectively seeking final relief before trial.

The court found prima facie entitlement to spousal support, but maintained the status quo at the amount fixed in the parties' addendum because there was no demonstrated financial hardship or urgency.

Child support was terminated as of December 31, 2020 based on the respondent's admission, with any earlier termination date left for trial.

Following a motion regarding custody, access, and child support, the respondent father sought costs.

The applicant mother argued that success was divided and no costs should be payable.

The court found that the father was substantially successful on the access and child support issues, while the mother was only successful on the minor issue of shared transportation.

Applying the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court rejected the mother's argument of divided success and awarded costs to the father on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $1,405.76.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and restricted contact for the respondent father, citing her vulnerable health status during the COVID-19 pandemic and the father's alleged non-compliance with health protocols.

The court granted the mother interim exclusive possession of the home and ordered the father's contact with the children to be via electronic means, finding that the father had not adequately addressed the increased health risks to the family.

The court declined to address financial aspects due to insufficient information.

The applicant sought leave to proceed to an urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and related relief, citing medical vulnerability during the COVID-19 crisis and the respondent's failure to adhere to "stay at home" recommendations.

The court granted leave, finding that the applicant's proposed motion met the Chief Justice's criteria for urgency due to her serious medical conditions, including systemic lupus, asthma, and supraventricular tachycardia.

The ruling emphasized that the purpose of the leave motion was to assess urgency, not to determine the merits of the underlying dispute.