Clayton J. Conlan

The court determined the quantum of costs for the plaintiff, Turn-Key Projects, following a remittal from the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal had found that Turn-Key was the successful party at trial, overturning the trial judge's initial decision to award no costs.

The court considered the parties' unreasonable positions on costs and applied Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the plaintiff's partial success at trial (recovering 64% of the principal amount sought).

The court awarded Turn-Key $25,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The Applicant and Respondent, divorced spouses, were before the court for a trial of an issue to determine the division of proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned property.

The Respondent had unilaterally sold the property and sought to deduct various expenses and interest charges from the proceeds, despite a prior settlement agreement and court orders.

The court found the Respondent had repeatedly violated prior orders and a settlement agreement, disentitling him to anything but an equal division of the net proceeds.

The court ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant half of the net proceeds plus an outstanding costs award from a previous judgment.

This endorsement supplements a prior judgment regarding a father's motion to change his child support obligation.

The court addressed two remaining issues: the imputation of income to the father for child support purposes and costs.

The mother sought a higher imputed income and costs, while the father proposed a lower income and no costs due to divided success.

The court imputed an annual gross income of $40,000 to the father and ordered no costs, finding divided success.

The decision also varied the division of section 7 expenses.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for property damage caused by a ruptured sprinkler system, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The plaintiff argued the limitation period did not begin until it received its expert's formal report.

The court found that the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge of the material facts to base an allegation of negligence against the defendants well before the formal report was delivered, based on preliminary communications with the expert.

The motions were granted and the action was dismissed as it was commenced outside the two-year limitation period.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order to reduce child support and to allow access without exchange centers or paid programs.

The applicant mother opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the request regarding access due to a lack of evidence in the father's affidavit.

However, the court granted the request to reduce child support, noting the father's income had decreased to $56,430.00 and the original order provided for annual adjustments.

The motion was allowed in part with no costs awarded.

The defendants submitted written requests to dismiss the self-represented plaintiff's claim under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the statement of claim to be incomprehensible, indefensible, and incapable of a coherent response.

The court concluded that the claim was frivolous and an abuse of process on its face, and dismissed the action.

Following a trial where the applicant father successfully obtained an order for the return of the parties' children to Dubai, the court determined the issue of costs.

The father sought $486,000 on a partial and full recovery basis, relying on an offer to settle.

The respondent mother argued for no costs or a significantly reduced amount due to her limited financial means.

The court found the father was entitled to costs and had beaten his offer to settle, but fixed costs at $250,000 on a partial indemnity basis to ensure the award was proportionate and within the mother's reasonable expectations and ability to pay.

The mother brought a cross-motion for temporary custody, child support, and further questioning of the father, while the father sought to amend his pleadings.

The court granted the father leave to amend his pleadings and granted the mother temporary custody on consent.

On the issue of child support, the court found the father was intentionally unemployed and imputed an annual income of $100,000, reducing his previous $150,000 salary to account for the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also ordered the father to attend up to six hours of further questioning.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for impaired care or control of a motor vehicle.

At trial, the judge found that the police had violated the appellant's Charter rights by arbitrarily detaining him for 32 hours, but declined to order a stay of proceedings, instead imposing a lenient sentence.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in dismissing the stay request.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge applied the proper test and fashioned an adequate Charter remedy.

The father brought a motion to change a final consent order, seeking to wipe out child support arrears and reduce ongoing child support due to a mental breakdown that placed him on unpaid sick leave, and a planned return to Nigeria.

The court found the unpaid sick leave constituted a material change in circumstances, but the planned return to Nigeria did not.

The court allowed a retroactive reduction in child support effective October 1, 2020, citing the father's delay in bringing the motion and lack of effective notice.

The court deferred the determination of the father's imputed income, ordering both parties to file brief affidavits on the issue.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference against a seven-year-old complainant.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding the offences occurred within the six-month limitation period, alleging a failure to resolve reliability concerns with the child's evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility and reliability analysis was sufficient and revealed no palpable and overriding error.

The respondent, having successfully defended an appeal of a Master's order compelling production of documents, sought costs of the appeal.

The respondent claimed up to $36,957.78 on a full indemnity basis, citing the appellants' delay tactics and a last-minute abandoned motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The appellants argued the claimed amounts were disproportionate.

The court agreed the appellants' conduct was problematic but elected to award costs on a partial indemnity scale, fixing the amount at $25,000.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for refusing to comply with a roadside breath demand.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding the demand was made 'forthwith' and with reasonable suspicion.

The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the appeal, holding the 8-9 minute delay was reasonably necessary for the officer to run a query, wait for the screening device, and explain the consequences of refusal.

The court also found the objective component of reasonable suspicion was satisfied by the appellant's speed, failure to signal, departure from a licensed establishment, and odour of alcohol.

The respondent mother brought a 14B motion to determine who should conduct her court-ordered psychiatric assessment and what documents should be provided to the assessor.

The mother, applicant father, and respondent father each proposed a different psychiatrist.

The court selected the respondent father's proposed assessor, finding him to be the most qualified for adult psychiatric diagnoses.

The court also ordered that all prior orders, including those made without prejudice, be provided to the assessor.

In a non-Hague international child retention case, the court held that Ontario lacked jurisdiction under ss. 22 and 23 of the Children’s Law Reform Act to determine custody and access respecting two Canadian children retained in Ontario after a temporary trip from Dubai.

The court found the children were habitually resident in Dubai, there was a pending Dubai proceeding, and the evidence did not establish serious harm if they were returned.

The court also rejected a constitutional challenge to s. 40(3) of the Act, holding that the return-order provision was intra vires Ontario and did not violate ss. 2(a), 6, 7, or 15 of the Charter.

A return order to Dubai was granted, together with ancillary enforcement and sealing-related relief.

Two fathers brought separate motions seeking temporary child support and section 7 expenses from the mother for their respective children.

The mother admitted her obligation to pay but disputed the amounts, the retroactive date, and claimed undue hardship.

The court ordered the mother to pay Table child support based on an agreed income of $117,360 and 50% of section 7 expenses for both children, retroactive to September 1, 2020, when the demands were first made.

The court dismissed the mother's undue hardship claim at this stage, encouraging her to reduce her supervised access costs first.

The appellants appealed a Master's order compelling a non-party accounting firm to produce documents pursuant to Rule 30.10.

The appellants argued that the documents, having been previously seized by police during a related criminal fraud investigation, were subject to Crown privilege and that the Crown should have been served with the motion under the Wagg principles.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the return of documents to a non-party extinguishes any potential Crown privilege and that the Wagg screening process does not apply to standard non-party production motions where the Crown brief itself is not being sought.

In a family law trial concerning whether two young children should be returned to Dubai, the respondent mother brought an application to adduce expert opinion evidence from a psychotherapist.

The proposed evidence concerned the potential emotional and psychological impact on infants separated from their primary caregiver.

The applicant father opposed the admission of the evidence.

Following a voir dire, the court applied the test for expert evidence and found the proposed expert was properly qualified and capable of giving fair, objective, and non-partisan evidence.

The court granted the application, permitting the expert to testify strictly on the potential impact of separation from a primary caregiver, but prohibited her from opining on the specific attachment of the children to either parent.

The offender pleaded guilty to second degree murder for shooting and killing his domestic partner in their backyard.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 16 to 17 years, while the defence sought 12 to 13 years.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the domestic nature of the crime and use of a firearm, against mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, lack of prior record, and cooperation with police.

Applying the McKnight range for domestic homicides, the court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with a parole ineligibility period of 14 years.

Following the dismissal of the respondent father's motion, the applicant mother sought costs.

The court rejected the father's argument that success was divided, noting that every request made by the father in the underlying motion was dismissed.

The court awarded the mother partial indemnity costs of $17,000, taking into account the parties' financial means and the mother's reasonable settlement offers.