Courtney Kazembe

Following a successful summary judgment motion for payment of a real estate commission, the moving party sought costs.

The trustee opposed personal liability, arguing costs should be paid from funds held in court.

The investors argued the trustee should pay costs personally due to improper conduct.

The court ordered costs of $10,000 to be paid from the funds in court, as the moving party should not be prejudiced by the dispute between the trustee and investors, but without prejudice to the investors seeking recovery from the trustee in their ongoing litigation.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary his child support obligations, which was dismissed due to his deliberate failure to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The respondent mother sought her costs of the motion.

The court found that the applicant's persistent non-disclosure amounted to bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Consequently, the court awarded the respondent her costs on a full recovery basis, fixed at $16,525.29.

The applicant, acting as estate trustee, challenged the respondent's entitlement to $250,000 that the respondent withdrew from a joint bank account he held with the deceased.

The applicant argued the funds belonged to the estate based on the presumption of resulting trust.

The court found that the bank documents and corroborating evidence demonstrated the deceased's intention to gift the funds to the respondent through the right of survivorship.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent was entitled to retain the funds.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm following a single-car collision on Highway 401.

The accused, driving a friend's car, approached another vehicle at a high rate of speed and made a sudden lane change to avoid a collision, losing control and striking the guardrails.

The passenger suffered significant injuries including a broken kneecap and concussion.

The court rejected the accused's claim that the passenger grabbed the steering wheel.

Applying the modified objective test, the court found the accused's excessive speed and sudden lane change constituted a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable driver.

The accused was found guilty.

The parties sought a divorce and resolution of corollary issues including equalization of net family property, spousal support, and the partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The court determined the date of separation to be September 1, 2010, and calculated the equalization payment owed by the applicant to the respondent, which was adjusted to account for the applicant's sole payment of the mortgage since separation.

The court denied child support for the adult child, awarded a lump sum non-compensatory spousal support payment to the respondent due to his limited income-earning capacity from motor vehicle accidents, denied the applicant's request for exclusive possession, and ordered the partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The applicant mother sought an urgent temporary custody order after the respondent father refused to return their child to Ontario following an agreed-upon summer visit in Florida.

The father sent text messages indicating he had physically disciplined the child and intended to keep him in Florida permanently.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in Ontario under section 22 of the Children's Law Reform Act, giving the court jurisdiction to make an interim order.

The court granted temporary custody to the mother, finding it in the child's best interests to return to his established life in Ontario and away from the father's admitted physical abuse, pending a final determination under the Hague Convention in Florida.

Following a successful application for rectification of the Land Titles Register to reflect a historical right-of-way, the applicant sought costs.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded because the registration omission resulted from an administrative error and because the applicant had not previously provided notice of reliance on the right-of-way registered under the Registry Act.

The court rejected these submissions and held that the successful party was entitled to its costs.

The applicant’s bill of costs was found to be fair and reasonable and was granted.