Cindy Scharff

This costs endorsement followed a ten-day trial concerning custody, parenting time, and decision-making for a child.

The father (respondent) was largely successful at trial, achieving equal parenting time and final decision-making on health matters, which matched or exceeded his offers to settle.

The mother (applicant) had sought sole custody and reduced parenting time for the father, and her offers were not matched.

The court found the father's conduct reasonable and the mother's position unreasonable.

Consequently, the court awarded the father full recovery costs from the date of his first offer and partial recovery for the period prior, totaling $53,037.63.

This was a family costs decision arising from an application to review child support despite a separation agreement requiring mediation first and then arbitration for reviewable disputes.

Both parties ignored the mandatory dispute resolution process without a written amendment to the agreement, and neither side achieved success on the merits in court.

The court held that Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules did not apply and that, while Rule 24 presumptively favours a successful party, there was no successful party here.

Taking into account the parties' unreasonable decision to litigate and the absence of costs endorsements at the case conferences, the court awarded the respondent wife limited all-inclusive costs.

The appellant purchased a new condominium townhouse and subsequently discovered serious water leaks and mold.

She sued the developer, municipality, and various engineers involved in the project for negligence and breach of contract.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action against three sets of engineers, finding they owed no duty of care to the appellant under the Anns/Cooper test and that the Professional Engineers Act does not create a private law duty of care.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, noting the engineers had no contractual relationship with the appellant, their design was not shown to be negligent, and their limited on-site inspection duties did not require physical testing.