Clinton Harrison Culic

This endorsement addresses a last-minute motion by counsel, Clinton Culic, to be removed as lawyer of record for the respondent, Lee Aubin, which necessitated an adjournment of the main application.

The court granted the adjournment, ordered the respondent, Ms. Aubin, to pay $7,500 in costs thrown away to the applicant, BMO Trust Company.

The court also directed Mr. Culic to appear at a later date to show cause why he should not be personally liable for reimbursing Ms. Aubin for these costs due to his conduct in delaying the motion to withdraw.

The applicant sought a declaration that a retaining wall was on the property line between his property and the respondent's, and an order for the respondent to be partially responsible for its repairs.

The court found that the applicant's cited case law did not support a general principle of equal responsibility for retaining walls on property lines.

The court also rejected the applicant's argument for equitable relief, holding that preventing damage to a lower property from a neighbour's collapsing property is not a "benefit" to the lower property owner that would warrant contribution to the retaining wall's reconstruction.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

The plaintiff, Pryers Construction Ltd., sought to enforce a construction lien for $34,601.66 against MVMB Holdings Inc., Scott Birnie, and Riverside Ford Sales Limited for renovation work.

Key issues included the applicability of the old Construction Lien Act versus the new Construction Act, the addition of Riverside as a party despite the Limitations Act, and the personal liability of Scott Birnie.

The court found the old Construction Lien Act applied, allowed the addition of Riverside as a party under the doctrine of special circumstances, and determined that both corporate defendants were "owners" under the Act.

However, the court declined to pierce the corporate veil to hold Scott Birnie personally liable.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff against the corporate defendants for the claimed amount.

An appeal from a trial judgment concerning a construction contract dispute.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's findings regarding responsibility for drywall deficiencies and the labour rate credited to the appellant.

The appellate court found the trial judge's determination that the appellant assumed responsibility for drywall installed by third parties was fully supported by evidence.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the labour rate issue.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

This application concerned the respondent's claims for an interest in two properties registered solely in the applicant's name, a division of RRSP assets, and spousal support, alongside the applicant's counter-claims for occupancy rent and specific household items.

The court found no evidence of a joint family venture, largely due to the parties' segregation of assets and financial responsibilities.

The respondent's claims for property interest, RRSPs, and spousal support were dismissed, with the court noting his lack of credible evidence, failure to disclose income, and "unclean hands" in attempting to shelter assets from child support obligations.

The applicant was awarded a net monetary sum for occupancy rent and personal property.

Following a family law trial in which custody of two children was varied in favour of the applicant, the court addressed costs.

The successful applicant sought over $23,000 in costs, including full indemnity from the date of a written settlement offer under the Family Law Rules.

While the court acknowledged the presumption that costs follow the event and the enhanced costs consequences of an offer to settle, it found that both parties contributed significantly to the conflict leading to the litigation.

Taking into account the respondent’s limited financial means and the impact of a costs order on her ability to pay child support, the court exercised its discretion to significantly reduce the costs award.

The applicant father sought to vary a prior joint custody order to obtain sole custody and child support.

The court considered whether there had been a material change in circumstances under the Children’s Law Reform Act and whether the proposed variation was in the best interests of the children.

Evidence addressed school attendance, hygiene concerns, medical care, and parental communication failures while the children resided primarily with the respondent mother.

The court found a material change in circumstances and concluded that the children’s educational, medical, and developmental needs were being better met while residing with the father.

Sole custody was granted to the father with liberal access to the mother, and income was imputed to the mother for child support purposes.

Following a motion for spousal support and a cross‑motion regarding the release of proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home, the court determined the issue of costs.

Both parties had served Offers to Settle addressing different aspects of the dispute, but neither offer was accepted.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs on the basis that the court’s decision matched her offer.

The court held that the applicant was not entitled to elevated costs because she could have resolved the cross‑motion by accepting the respondent’s offer and because portions of her offer addressed relief not sought in her motion.

Costs were fixed in a reduced amount after considering the Family Law Rules.