Corinne A. Muccilli

The plaintiff and defendant were neighbours in a condominium building.

The plaintiff made numerous complaints about excessive noise and marijuana smoke emanating from the defendant's unit.

The defendant experienced vandalism to her door and reported the plaintiff to the police, resulting in the plaintiff's arrest for mischief, though charges were later stayed.

The plaintiff sued for malicious prosecution, defamation, negligence, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of mental suffering, harassment, and nuisance.

The court dismissed all claims except private nuisance, finding the defendant's excessive noise constituted a substantial and unreasonable interference with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of her unit.

The plaintiff was awarded $15,000 in general damages.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's divorce application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the applicant was not ordinarily resident in Ontario for the preceding year.

Alternatively, if jurisdiction was found, the respondent sought to amend her answer to include claims for setting aside a marriage contract, spousal support, and equalization, and argued for *forum non conveniens*.

The court found that the applicant was ordinarily resident in Ontario, establishing jurisdiction for the divorce.

However, applying the *forum non conveniens* factors, particularly the avoidance of a multiplicity of proceedings, the court determined that Florida was the clearly more appropriate forum, as the parties and their child resided there and related child-related issues were already being litigated in Florida.

The respondent's motion to dismiss the divorce application was granted.

The parties engaged in a high-conflict family law trial primarily concerning the custody and access of their 4-year-old daughter.

The mother sought sole custody and made allegations of domestic violence against the father, which she used to restrict his access.

The court found the mother's allegations to be false and that she had actually assaulted the father.

The court determined it was in the child's best interests to grant the father sole custody with a 50/50 shared parenting schedule, as he was the only parent willing to foster the child's relationship with the other parent.

The court also resolved financial issues, dismissing the mother's claim for spousal support, ordering her to pay equalization and occupation rent, and setting child support based on a set-off approach.

This is a costs decision on appeal from a Superior Court judgment.

The appellant appealed a decision by Justice Douglas K. Gray dated April 14, 2016.

The Court of Appeal determined that this was not a case warranting substantial indemnity costs, as both parties had pursued and defended their positions vigorously.

The respondents claimed partial indemnity costs of $17,354.08, but the court awarded costs to the respondents in the reduced amount of $13,000, inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a costs order made by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal reviewed additional material filed by counsel at the court's request and determined that the appellant's submissions did not raise an issue on which leave to appeal the costs order should be granted.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court judgment concerning the scope and use of a right-of-way to access her garage.

The appellant raised three arguments: (1) that the application judge erred in interpreting the right-of-way as providing access only along the existing laneway; (2) that fence posts erected by the respondents interfered with the right-of-way; and (3) that the form of the order was deficient because undertakings were not included in the formal order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings on all grounds, finding no legal error or misapprehension of evidence regarding the scope of the right-of-way, noting the fence post issue was moot as the posts had been removed, and finding no significant difference between including undertakings in the formal order versus the recitals.

The main appeal was dismissed, with the costs question deferred pending receipt of written submissions.

The applicant sought costs of $87,150.00 on a partial to full indemnity basis following a trial where he was largely successful on primary issues of custody and decision-making.

The respondent argued for no costs due to divided success, coercive settlement offers, and financial hardship.

The court, applying the principles of indemnification, settlement encouragement, and discouraging inappropriate behaviour, found the applicant to be the more successful party.

While the applicant's offers were not coercive, full indemnity was not warranted as not all terms were achieved.

Considering the respondent's low income and the need for a tempered approach in custody/access cases to avoid discouraging bona fide claims, the court awarded the applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive amount of $15,000.00.

The parties, who separated in 2012, engaged in a high-conflict custody dispute over their child.

Despite previously drafting a handwritten agreement for joint custody and shared parenting, the mother subsequently reneged and began making unilateral decisions regarding the child's health and education.

The court declined to order joint custody due to the parties' inability to communicate effectively.

The court implemented a shared parenting schedule based on the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendations and granted the father final decision-making authority over major issues, finding him better suited to foster the child's best interests.

Child support was also determined, and the father's request for a name change was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The plaintiff subcontractor registered a claim for lien for concrete foundation work.

The defendants argued the lien was registered out of time.

The plaintiff claimed it attended the site on February 19, 2009, to cut ties and chip concrete, which would bring the April 6, 2009 registration within the 45-day limit.

The court found the February work was to rectify minor deficiencies and amounted to an attempt to bootstrap the claim for lien.

The court held the lien expired because the time for preservation began running when the substantive work was completed in November 2008.