C. Allen

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for extended society care with access.

The respondent parents, despite multiple adjournments and warnings, failed to file responding materials but were permitted to give oral evidence.

The court found the parents' evidence lacked credibility and failed to present a viable plan of care.

Applying the summary judgment framework in the child protection context, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The child was found in need of protection due to the parents' substance misuse, domestic violence, and mental health issues, and was placed in extended society care with access.

The plaintiff sued the driver of a rear-ended car but realized after discovery that the driver had no liability.

The defendant offered to accept a dismissal without costs if accepted within two weeks, but the plaintiff missed the deadline.

The defendant subsequently moved for summary judgment and sought costs.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the action and awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs, finding that the defendant was entitled to costs after the plaintiff sued, conducted discovery, and lost.

Following a family law trial where the respondent mother obtained sole custody and the applicant father obtained more generous access, the parties could not agree on costs.

The mother sought substantial indemnity costs based on her success and an offer to settle.

The court found divided success on the issue of access but noted the father's unreasonable conduct during litigation.

The court awarded the mother partial indemnity costs in the amount of $18,126.84.

The parties sought costs following motions primarily concerning financial disclosure and an accounting of children's education funds.

The court noted the long history of the hard-fought case and the difficulty in evaluating success, as both parties took unreasonable positions on certain issues.

The court reserved the costs of the respondent's disclosure motion to the trial judge, who would be best positioned to assess its necessity.

However, the court awarded the applicant modest costs of $750 for his successful cross-motion to obtain an accounting of the education funds.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend its statement of claim to add SH Pan Transport Inc. as a defendant in an action for damaged freight.

SH Pan argued the motion was statute-barred as the two-year limitation period had expired.

The court found that the plaintiff exercised reasonable due diligence in relying on the initial defendant's admission that the driver was its employee, and the claim against SH Pan was not discoverable until the initial defendant withdrew that admission at discovery.

The court granted the motion to add SH Pan as a defendant, finding no non-compensable prejudice.

The parties separated after a lengthy marriage and proceeded to trial on property issues, including the calculation of net family properties, premarital deductions, excluded property, and the return of chattels.

The respondent claimed that joint GICs funded by his inheritance should be excluded property, but the court found he failed to rebut the presumption of joint ownership.

The respondent also sought an unequal division of net family property based on unconscionability, which the court dismissed.

The court determined the allowable premarital deductions and ordered the return of specific personal property items.

The parties separated after a short marriage and sought resolution of custody, access, child support, and property division.

The mother was awarded sole custody of their young daughter, while the father was granted supervised access to be managed by a parenting coordinator, despite the mother's request for no access.

The father was ordered to pay ongoing child support and arrears.

The court also ordered an unequal division of net family property in favour of the mother, finding that a $240,000 contribution from her parents was a gift to her alone and that equalizing it would be unconscionable.