Carol A. Bargman

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to remain in the home she occupied with the deceased, the respondent sought costs of $40,681.76 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found there was divided success, as the applicant had obtained some relief on consent and in a prior appearance.

Considering the narrow scope of the issue, the respondent's unnecessary landlord and tenant proceeding, and the applicant's financial circumstances, the court awarded the respondent reduced costs of $4,000, deferred until after the sale of an estate property.

The applicant sought an interim order to continue residing in a property following the death of her common-law spouse, pending a trial of an issue regarding the estate's potential interest in the property.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the estate did not have a vested interest in the property, which was owned by a third party (the deceased's brother).

The court lacked jurisdiction under the Succession Law Reform Act to grant exclusive possession of property not owned by the estate.

The applicant was ordered to vacate the property by a specified date, with interim directions regarding expenses remaining in effect until then.

The moving party was successful in obtaining leave to appeal but unsuccessful in obtaining a stay of a temporary order regarding the exclusive use of a Florida condominium.

The court determined that the moving party was the more successful party overall, as the bulk of the preparation and argument focused on the leave issue.

Applying the factors in Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the responding party to pay costs fixed at $5,500 inclusive.

The husband sought leave to appeal an interim order granting the wife exclusive possession of a condominium located in Florida for one week per month, and a stay of that order pending appeal.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the order because the Family Law Act limits exclusive possession to matrimonial homes situated in Ontario, and the motions judge did not fully consider whether the court could exercise in personam jurisdiction over foreign property.

However, the court dismissed the motion for a stay pending appeal, finding the husband would not suffer irreparable harm.

In a will challenge concerning allegations of undue influence over the deceased, the court considered the proper procedural framework for managing the litigation following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The court held that proportionality principles should guide orders for directions in estate litigation and rejected the routine use of the traditional Estates List standard order for directions.

Instead, the court ordered limited documentary production, permitted written interrogatories in place of oral examinations for discovery, and scheduled a hybrid hearing using affidavit evidence with viva voce cross‑examination.

The court also transferred a related civil action to the Estates List and assumed case management of both proceedings to ensure a timely and cost‑effective resolution.

The plaintiff corporation sought continuation of a preservation order restricting the defendant from dealing with equity in a replacement property pending trial.

The underlying action alleged unpaid renovation work and a loan for property taxes, claiming the parties agreed payment would come from the proceeds of sale of a prior property.

The defendant denied any contract and disputed the extent of renovations.

The court found significant credibility conflicts requiring resolution at trial but concluded there was a serious issue to be tried and a sufficient connection between the proceeds of the original property and the equity in the replacement property to justify relief under Rule 45.02.

The preservation order was continued with procedural directions to move the action expeditiously to trial.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's monetary award for unjust enrichment, lump sum spousal support, and costs.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's calculation of the unjust enrichment award, which properly accounted for set-offs.

The court also upheld the lump sum spousal support order, noting the trial judge properly weighed its advantages and disadvantages, including the appellant's history of late payments.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal a $10,000 costs decision made by the motion judge after two actions were consolidated.

The plaintiff argued the costs awarded were too high and that the motion judge failed to adequately consider an offer to settle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the motion judge exercised his extraordinarily wide discretion properly, the offer to settle was not in the motion record, and there was no conflicting decision or matter of general importance.

Costs of the motion for leave were fixed at $8,500 payable forthwith.

The wife appealed a trial judgment regarding the equalization of net family property and spousal support.

At trial, the judge intervened after the close of evidence to request additional actuarial calculations based on the husband's reduced life expectancy, which significantly altered the pension valuations in his favour.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge overstepped her role and usurped the function of counsel, causing procedural unfairness.

The Court varied the equalization payment based on the original trial evidence.

The Court upheld the trial judge's use of the pro rata method for valuing the husband's pension, but set aside the lump sum spousal support award as it was based solely on an income differential without evidence of need.

The appellant father appealed a judgment dismissing his motion for an order compelling the return of his child to Toronto.

He argued the motion judge failed to consider the best interests of the child, demonstrated bias, and he sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal rejected the arguments regarding the best interests of the child and bias, finding no support on the record.

The court also declined to admit the fresh evidence, concluding it would not have altered the outcome.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The appellant father brought a motion for interim custody of his daughter pending the appeal of a trial judgment that dismissed his claim for custody and maintained the mother's custody.

Following the trial, the mother was charged with assault and prohibited from contacting the child, leading the paternal grandparents to assume day-to-day care.

The court dismissed the father's motion for interim custody, noting the trial judge's finding that he was not an appropriate caregiver, and ordered that the child remain with the grandparents.

The court also requested the involvement of the Children's Lawyer.

The appellant appealed an order providing for child support in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines and costs on a solicitor and client basis.

The motions judge found a material change in circumstances since the signing of the separation agreement due to the appellant's increased income.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge had jurisdiction to make a final order on the motion, the finding of a material change in circumstances was supported by the evidence, and the costs order was justified due to the appellant's failure to disclose his financial affairs.