C. Horkins

Following a nine‑day family law trial concerning child support income, arrears, section 7 expenses, spousal support, and distribution of trust funds, both parties sought substantial costs awards against the other.

The court considered the Family Law Rules, particularly Rule 24, and the principles governing costs including proportionality, success at trial, reasonableness of conduct, and the parties’ financial circumstances.

The court found that success at trial was divided, with each party prevailing on different issues.

Certain claimed fees and disbursements were disallowed because costs for earlier steps had not been reserved to the trial judge.

After weighing the relevant factors, the court concluded that fairness required each party to bear their own costs.

The mother appealed an order granting summary judgment in a child protection proceeding that made the child a Crown ward without access.

The motion judge had concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, given the child’s prolonged time in care, consistent refusal to return to the mother, and the statutory limits on continued Society wardship under the Child and Family Services Act.

On appeal, the mother argued the wrong legal test was applied and that the judge relied excessively on hearsay statements attributed to the child.

The court held that the correct summary judgment test was applied and that even if the expanded fact‑finding powers under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure had been considered, the outcome would have been the same.

The evidence established no triable issue, and the motion judge properly relied on professional reports reflecting the child’s consistent views and therapeutic assessments.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final consent order granting sole custody to the respondent father.

She argued that the termination of family counselling, the child's absence from school, and the respondent's changes in residence constituted material changes in circumstances.

The court applied the test from Gordon v. Goertz and found that none of these events were unforeseen or materially affected the children's needs in a fundamental way.

The motion to change was dismissed, and costs were fixed at $2,000 payable by the applicant.

The applicant child was successful on a motion for interim relief against the respondent father, obtaining a declaration of parentage, child support, and interim disbursements.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The applicant sought full recovery costs based on an offer to settle and the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that the issues were novel or of public interest.

Finding the respondent's behaviour unreasonable and that the applicant beat her offer to settle, the court awarded costs of $32,523.72.

The applicant brought multiple interim motions in a family law dispute concerning custody, access, child support, travel with the child, birth registration, and spousal support following a short marriage and the birth of one child.

The court declined to grant interim sole custody, determining that custody should be decided at trial while maintaining the existing access schedule recommended by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and implemented in a prior order.

Child support was recalculated after imputing income to the respondent based on add-backs of personal business expenses, resulting in support of $565 per month, while retroactive support was deferred to trial due to conflicting evidence.

Requests for a restraining order, interim spousal support, and certain additional restrictions on access were denied.

The court also ordered the respondent to be added to the child’s birth registration, established terms for travel within North America, addressed section 7 expenses, and required disclosure regarding life insurance securing child support obligations.

In a high-conflict parenting dispute, the mother sought a declaration that the father breached a prior court order requiring him to make all reasonable efforts to support a shared parenting schedule.

Evidence showed the children had lived exclusively with the father for several years and had become estranged from their mother.

The court found multiple instances where the father failed to co-parent or support the residential arrangements, including unilateral decision‑making, permitting the children to determine their residence contrary to the order, and failing to meaningfully participate in court‑ordered reunification therapy.

A separation agreement resolving financial matters did not displace the prior parenting order.

The court declared the father in breach of the order but granted him sole custody given the children’s ages, the passage of time, and the existing status quo.

Parents brought competing motions concerning custody, residence, schooling, counselling, and access for their young child amid high parental conflict following separation.

The court found the father had engaged in conduct harmful to the child, including involving the older sibling in litigation and unilaterally terminating access for several months.

The court ordered that the child receive counselling with a qualified psychologist, authorized the mother to arrange educational and psychological assessments without the father’s consent, and required the parents to share counselling costs.

The father’s request to change the child’s primary residence and school was rejected due to the importance of preserving the status quo pending trial.

Access with the father was reinstated on a structured alternating‑weekend schedule with behavioural conditions.

Following a seven‑day family law trial addressing equalization of property, child support, and spousal support, the court determined costs after the parties failed to agree.

The successful party sought substantial indemnity costs, while the respondent argued the decision should await the outcome of his appeal.

The court held that costs must be determined as part of the trial decision notwithstanding a pending appeal.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the principles in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, the court considered the complexity of the issues, counsel’s rates, time spent, and the parties’ conduct.

The respondent’s unreasonable positions and conduct at trial justified a significant costs award.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs plus disbursements totaling $89,595.96.

Following a family law summary judgment motion regarding custody and access, the court addressed costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant had obtained summary judgment granting sole custody but the access issue was directed to trial.

The applicant sought approximately $39,773 in costs using a “hybrid full recovery” approach.

The court held that although the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs as the successful party on custody, the amount claimed was excessive for a one‑day motion decided on affidavit evidence.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Following a four‑day family law trial concerning the calculation of income for child support purposes, both self‑represented parties sought costs.

Although three of four trial issues were decided in the applicant’s favour, other matters were settled in the respondent’s favour and the applicant was ordered to pay both past and ongoing child support.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and principles governing costs awards to self‑represented litigants, the court considered the limited complexity of the issues and the parties’ unreasonable conduct in prolonged litigation.

The court held that neither party achieved sufficient success to justify a costs award and that certain claimed expenses such as lost wages, pension contributions, babysitting, and parking were not recoverable.

No costs were ordered.

Following a family law trial concerning child support, retroactive child support, and spousal support, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The successful party sought approximately $79,766 in costs for a seven‑day trial, while the opposing party argued no costs should be ordered due to alleged divided success.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered factors including the complexity of the issues, counsel’s hourly rate and time spent, the parties’ conduct, and the parties’ settlement offers.

The court found that while the successful party did not achieve a result superior to her final offer for all issues, she substantially exceeded the opposing party’s offers and was presumptively entitled to costs.

The court concluded that a reduced award constituted a fair and reasonable amount in the circumstances.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking security for costs in the amount of $25,000 for an upcoming custody trial, while the respondent father sought to adjourn the scheduled trial.

The respondent resided outside Ontario, had failed to pay substantial prior costs awards totalling $79,000 plus interest, and maintained assets outside the jurisdiction.

Applying r. 24(13) of the Family Law Rules, the court held that multiple factors justifying security for costs were present, including unpaid costs orders and the respondent’s residence outside Ontario.

The court further found the respondent’s position lacked merit and that the circumstances constituted an exceptional case warranting security for costs in a custody matter.

The adjournment request was dismissed and the respondent was ordered to post $25,000 security for costs or risk having his Answer struck.

The applicant brought a motion for retroactive and ongoing child support and interim spousal support following separation after a 13‑year marriage with one child.

The respondent argued child support should be calculated only on base salary because his employment bonus was uncertain and claimed undue hardship due to supporting his sponsored mother.

The court held that child support is presumptively based on line 150 income and rejected the undue hardship claim, finding the respondent had consistently received bonuses and failed to prove exceptional hardship.

Retroactive child support was awarded applying the principles in D.B.S. v. S.R.G., along with ongoing table support based on prior year income.

Interim spousal support was also ordered, with the court relying on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines as a non‑binding tool and considering the income disparity between the parties.

Two related actions challenged a municipality’s expropriation of commercial land that formed part of a 1,000‑acre assembly for a vehicle manufacturing plant.

The plaintiffs argued that the municipality unlawfully expropriated the property and conferred an illegal “bonus” on a private manufacturer by transferring the land at the expropriation price rather than its alleged fair market value, contrary to s. 106 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The court held that the municipality had lawful authority to expropriate the land for valid public purposes related to economic development.

Applying the contextual approach to s. 106 adopted in Friends of Lansdowne Inc. v. Ottawa (City), the court concluded that the transaction did not confer an “obviously undue advantage” on the private enterprise.

Accordingly, the expropriation and subsequent transfer did not breach the statutory prohibition on municipal bonuses.

The applicant sought child support and ongoing spousal support following the breakdown of a short marriage in which the respondent had sponsored the applicant and her child to Canada.

The central issue was whether the respondent stood in the place of a parent to the applicant’s child, who was not his biological child.

Applying the principles in Chartier, the court found that the respondent had assumed a parental role through financial support, representation to others as the child’s father, and participation in the child’s life.

The child was therefore a “child of the marriage,” and the respondent was ordered to pay guideline child support, including retroactive support.

The court also ordered time‑limited spousal support and granted the divorce.

The applicant father brought a motion for child support arrears from the respondent mother, who had relocated to New Brunswick and ceased paying support.

The court interpreted a prior consent order to determine the mother's minimum income for support purposes.

The mother claimed undue hardship under s. 10 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines due to the costs of exercising access and alleged inability to work.

The court dismissed the undue hardship claim, finding the mother had not proven exceptional circumstances and had the ability to earn income.

The mother was ordered to pay $30,328 in child support arrears and ongoing monthly support.

The applicant father sought to vary ongoing child and spousal support and rescind significant support arrears following the collapse of his car racing business.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's extreme financial hardship, including over $300,000 in debt and reliance on social assistance.

The court rescinded all existing support arrears, ordered ongoing child support of $508 per month based on his new $35,000 salary, and ordered time-limited spousal support of $192 per month to assist the mother while she completed her PhD.

The applicant mother brought a motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The parties continued to reside together with their two children in a highly tense and hostile environment following their separation.

The court considered a psychotherapist's report indicating that the 16-year-old daughter was suffering from anxiety and depression due to the respondent father's behavior, which the court found amounted to psychological assault.

Applying section 24 of the Family Law Act, the court determined it was in the best interests of the children to grant the applicant interim temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against multiple police services and government entities regarding mass arrests and detentions during the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while some causes of action (like false imprisonment and battery) were properly pleaded against the Toronto Police Services Board, the claims against other defendants failed.

Crucially, the plaintiff failed to satisfy the identifiable class, common issues, and preferable procedure requirements of the Class Proceedings Act due to the highly variable individual conduct of protesters and the impermissible use of subclasses.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion to certify a class action regarding copyright in land surveyors' plans, the parties could not agree on costs.

The successful defendant sought approximately $496,000, while the plaintiff argued for no costs or a maximum of $80,000, citing the novel point of law and public interest involved.

The court found that while the case raised a novel point of law, it did not involve a matter of public interest.

Applying the principles for fixing costs on a certification motion, the court awarded the defendant $200,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.