Christian Pilon

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement after the appellant, Boshra Mikhail, abandoned his appeal less than two weeks before the scheduled hearing.

The court awarded the respondent, Eman Mikhail, costs of $10,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes, after considering written submissions from both parties.

This decision addresses the terms of an adjournment of a family law trial caused by the Applicant's counsel's unavailability due to health issues.

The Respondent sought orders for disclosure, costs thrown away, and a further advance on equalization.

The court ordered the Applicant to pay $11,300 in costs thrown away and a further $58,000 advance on equalization, finding the Applicant responsible for the adjournment despite no fault.

The court also issued an interim child support order on consent.

This decision concerns the costs arising from a dispute between the estate of Laurette Larivière and her son, Conrad Larivière.

The original applications involved claims by the estate regarding funds, accounting, and a life insurance policy, and counter-claims by Conrad for compensation for care and reimbursement of funeral expenses.

The court found that Conrad had substantial success in the underlying applications, particularly in retaining life insurance proceeds and securing reimbursement for funeral expenses, while the estate's claims for accounting and compensation against Conrad were largely rejected.

Consequently, the court awarded Conrad partial indemnity costs.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to temporarily vary a final parenting order, seeking primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility for the parties' child.

Following the final order, the respondent mother experienced significant mental health issues, was involved with the Children's Aid Society, and faced criminal charges related to an assault on her partner.

The court found that exceptional circumstances existed requiring an immediate change to the parenting arrangements.

The motion was granted, placing the child in the father's primary care with supervised parenting time for the mother, and ordering the disclosure of the mother's medical and police records.

The respondent sought costs on a substantial or full indemnity basis following a successful motion for the sale of the matrimonial home and increased parenting time.

The applicant argued for divided success and that the parties should bear their own costs.

The court found the respondent was the successful party on the main issues and acted reasonably, while noting the applicant's failure to serve an offer to settle was an aggravating factor.

The court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs fixed at $5,000.

Following a lengthy family law trial regarding parenting and child support, both parties sought costs.

The mother sought $65,655.63 and the father sought $114,575.22.

The court declined to award costs to either party.

Although the mother was more successful at trial and made offers to settle, her egregious conduct—including denying parenting time, breaching court orders, lying under oath, and fabricating evidence—disentitled her to costs.

The father was also denied costs due to his unreasonable conduct, including amending his pleadings late to seek primary care and refusing to engage in settlement discussions.

The applicant father sought to vary a 2015 parenting order to grant him primary care and sole decision-making responsibility of the parties' nine-year-old child, alleging the respondent mother engaged in parental alienation and unilaterally suspended his parenting time.

The mother sought to maintain the status quo and requested retroactive child support.

The court found both parties lacked credibility, noting the mother fabricated text message evidence and the father failed to exercise consistent parenting time or pay proper child support.

The court concluded it was in the child's best interests to remain in the mother's primary care with sole decision-making responsibility, subject to strict consultation requirements, while granting the father increased, regular parenting time.

The father was also ordered to pay $9,414 in child support arrears.

The applicant father brought a motion for an interim order to expand his parenting time to a shared parenting schedule and to clarify communication for decision-making.

The respondent mother opposed the shared parenting schedule and proposed an alternative schedule.

The court found that the mother's proposed schedule was in the very young child's best interests, providing consistency while expanding the father's parenting time.

The court also ordered the father's requested terms regarding communication for decision-making and changed the exchange location to a police station to minimize conflict.

The respondent sought costs of $13,884.94 on a full indemnity basis following a successful motion for unsupervised interim parenting time.

The applicant argued each party should bear their own costs or that costs should be reduced to reflect only the portion of the motion dedicated to the parenting time issue.

The court found the respondent was the successful party but noted his bill of costs included fees for other issues not decided on the motion.

The court fixed costs at $3,000, representing approximately 33% of the total claimed, finding this amount reasonable and proportional.

This endorsement concerns costs arising from two applications related to an estate: an application for directions by the testamentary trustee (Mr. Cardinal) and an application for passing of accounts by the estate trustee (Mrs. Perreault).

The court found that Mr. Cardinal was entitled to costs for his initial application due to Mrs. Perreault's resistance to providing an accounting.

However, Mr. Cardinal's subsequent allegations of bad faith and misappropriation against Mrs. Perreault were unfounded and reprehensible.

Mrs. Perreault was largely successful in defending her accounting, despite some reductions in claimed expenses.

The court awarded Mr. Cardinal $18,000 in costs and Mrs. Perreault $48,000 in costs, resulting in a net award of $30,000 to Mrs. Perreault, payable personally by Mr. Cardinal due to his unfounded allegations.

The court addressed the settling of a final order following a trial, specifically concerning an omission in the prior decision regarding the children's surnames.

The applicant mother sought to include a previously agreed-upon consent for hyphenated surnames, which the respondent father opposed, arguing it was not in the original decision and required a formal motion under Rule 25(19)(b).

The court found it was not functus officio as the final order had not been issued, and therefore retained jurisdiction to amend its decision.

It determined that Rule 25(19)(b) was not applicable as no formal order existed yet.

The court decided to allow both parties to provide further submissions on the substantive issue of the surname change before finalizing the order.

The parties were unable to settle the terms of a formal Order following a previous decision regarding the administration of an estate.

The principal disagreements related to the compensation allowed for the respondent as Attorney and whether HST was payable.

The court fixed the respondent's compensation at $22,967.39 inclusive of HST, noting that any overpayments already received must be deducted from this amount, and provided directions for costs submissions.

Following a family law trial where the applicant mother was granted sole custody and permitted to move to Montreal, the court determined the issue of costs.

The mother sought up to $170,284.90, while the father argued for a reduction due to divided success and the mother's conduct.

The court found the mother was successful on the major issues of custody and mobility, but noted she was unsuccessful on significant financial claims.

Applying the Family Law Rules and considering the divided success, the parties' behavior, and the nature of mobility cases, the court ordered the father to pay costs of $40,000.

The father appealed a trial judgment permitting the mother to relocate with two children (ages five and seven) from Orleans, Ontario to Montreal, Quebec.

The father moved for a stay of the trial judgment pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the grounds of appeal were not particularly strong, that the father would not suffer irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the relocation to proceed.

The trial judgment had granted the father increased access, including overnight access on alternating weekends commencing February 2020, and the mother had made arrangements to facilitate the father's continued relationship with the children.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion to change regarding custody, access, and child support.

The court found the applicant was substantially successful and presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The court noted the respondent's unreasonable conduct in delaying the proceedings and failing to provide complete financial disclosure.

The applicant was awarded fixed costs of $40,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

In a high-conflict family law trial, the mother sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the parties' two young children to Montreal to take over her family's business.

The father sought joint custody and opposed the move.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding that the parties' poor communication and high conflict precluded joint custody, and permitted the move to Montreal as being in the children's best interests.

The father was granted a graduated access schedule that increased his parenting time to alternate weekends with overnights.

The court also ordered ongoing child support and a $10,000 lump sum for retroactive spousal support, but dismissed the mother's claims for retroactive section 7 expenses and a $60,000 business contribution due to insufficient evidence.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a prior order, seeking sole custody, termination of his child support obligation, and an order for the respondent mother to pay child support.

The motion also addressed the mother's financial disclosure obligations and the imputation of income for child support purposes.

The court found the mother's financial disclosure to be unduly delayed and inconsistent.

It imputed income to the mother based on her annual expenses, which were funded by her investment assets, rather than her declared line 150 income.

The court ordered the mother to pay child support and section 7 expenses based on the imputed income, retroactive to December 1, 2014.

The court also addressed the costs of the custody and access portion of the motion, finding that the father was entitled to costs up to the point the mother abandoned her custody claim.

Ginette Perreault, as estate trustee and attorney for property, brought an application to pass her accounts for the period of January 2008 to June 2015.

Roger Cardinal, a co-trustee, raised several objections, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, lack of transparency, bad faith, and exorbitant claims for time spent.

The court found that Perreault acted honestly, transparently, and with ordinary prudence, despite some record-keeping errors.

The court allowed her $43,000 cleaning fee for the deceased's hoarder home, approved payments for the deceased's wife's debts and an advance to a nephew, but reduced her claimed revenue disbursements by $6,000 and disallowed a $14,181.47 management fee.

Wolseley Canada Inc. sought summary judgment against Linda Scheffer-Côté for $64,517.33 based on an alleged personal guarantee of her husband's company's debt.

The guarantee document was lost.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as Wolseley failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that Ms. Scheffer-Côté signed a guarantee or its specific terms.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the action against Ms. Scheffer-Côté was dismissed.

This decision addresses the costs following a 20-day trial concerning custody and access, where the respondent (L.) was largely successful.

The respondent sought full or substantial indemnity costs, while the applicant (P.) requested annulment or reversal of costs.

The court, applying Rule 24(1) of the Règles en matière de droit de la famille, found the respondent presumptively entitled to costs.

The court rejected the respondent's reliance on a settlement offer made during a settlement conference due to Rule 17(23) and its failure to meet Rule 18 criteria.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent, reducing some claims due to shared responsibility for trial length and specific motion outcomes.

The final award was $83,960 payable by the applicant to the respondent.