D.A. Broad

Following cross-motions regarding child and spousal support, imputing income, and life insurance, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The court found divided success on the issue of the applicant's income for support purposes, but noted the respondent was successful in resisting the imputation of income to her and on the life insurance issue.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $5,085.

The parties made written submissions on costs following the respondent's success on the applicant's motion for reunification therapy and the respondent's cross-motion for child support.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $6,709.26, while the applicant argued each party should bear their own costs or costs should be fixed at $2,500.

The court applied the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, noting that a tempered approach to costs is appropriate in cases involving decision-making and parenting time.

The court fixed the respondent's costs at $2,945, payable by the applicant within 60 days.

The plaintiff, a dental hygienist, resigned and sued her former employer for constructive dismissal after her hours were reduced.

The defendant counterclaimed for breach of non-competition and non-solicitation clauses.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court dismissed both the action and the counterclaim.

The court found the termination, non-competition, and non-solicitation clauses in the employment contract were unenforceable.

However, the court also found the plaintiff was not constructively dismissed, as the reduction in hours merely reverted her schedule to its historical norm and did not breach an essential term of the contract.

The accused, a young person, was tried for second-degree murder following a drug rip-off where he shot the victim twice, including once in the head.

The sole issue at trial was whether the accused had the requisite specific intent for murder under s. 229(a) of the Criminal Code, or whether he should be convicted of manslaughter.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to the accused's out-of-court exculpatory statements and found them implausible.

Applying the common sense inference that a sane and sober person intends the natural and probable consequences of their actions, the court concluded the accused intended to cause bodily harm that he knew was likely to cause death and was reckless whether death ensued.

The accused was found guilty of second-degree murder.

The moving parties, defendants in a motor vehicle collision action, brought a motion to compel the Crown to provide further documentary discovery and produce a representative for oral discovery.

The action against the Crown was brought under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act (PTHIA).

The court considered conflicting jurisprudence on whether the Crown can be compelled to give discovery under the PTHIA.

Applying the doctrine of stare decisis, the court followed the Court of Appeal's decision in Longo, holding that the Crown cannot be compelled to submit to documentary or oral discovery in such claims.

The motion was dismissed.

The parties brought urgent cross-motions prior to a case conference regarding parenting time and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The father sought primary residence and supervised parenting time for the mother, alleging she engaged in irrational conduct including having him involuntarily admitted for psychiatric observation.

The mother sought primary residence and exclusive possession of the home.

The court dismissed the father's request for supervised parenting time, finding no risk of harm, and ordered a 2-2-3 equal parenting schedule on an interim interim basis.

The court granted the mother exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, noting the father's significantly higher income allowed him to secure alternate accommodation.

The parties submitted written arguments regarding costs following the applicant's successful motion for enforcement of a disclosure order and interim spousal support.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, relying on a written offer to settle that was more favourable than the order obtained.

The court found the applicant was the successful party and that the respondent's dilatory approach to financial disclosure necessitated the motion.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $5,500 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiff employee brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action under the Simplified Procedure.

The defendant employer alleged just cause for termination based on performance and behavioural issues.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding cause, as the employer failed to provide sufficient evidence of misconduct warranting summary dismissal, and set the reasonable notice period at 14 months.

However, because the Simplified Procedure prevented cross-examination on affidavits, the court found a genuine issue regarding mitigation of damages and the value of lost benefits, ordering a minitrial to resolve those specific issues.

The applicant, having been successful on a motion regarding the children's school enrolment, sought costs on a full indemnity basis of $15,663.04, relying on an offer to settle.

The respondent argued the amount was disproportionate and suggested $910 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the offer to settle did not attract elevated costs as it mirrored the relief sought without compromise.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded the applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $6,785.

The plaintiffs sued the City of Cambridge and its Animal Services for negligence following a dog bite incident, alleging failure to properly enforce the animal control by-law regarding prior incidents involving the same owners or premises.

The municipal defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the animal control officer's exercise of discretion during prior investigations did not fall below the standard of care.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiffs could not establish that the alleged negligence caused the injuries, as it was speculative whether further investigation would have prevented the attack.

The parties made written submissions on costs following the applicant's motions for disclosure, interim disbursements, non-depletion of assets, and questioning of third parties.

The respondent sought costs of $47,056.71 on a full recovery basis, arguing he was the successful party and had made a reasonable offer to settle.

The applicant argued for parties to bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found the respondent was successful on the contentious issues, but noted the applicant was justified in initially bringing the motion for disclosure.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court fixed the respondent's costs globally at $17,750.

Two brothers filed competing applications regarding the buy-sell provision of a cottage co-ownership agreement.

One brother sought to enforce the written agreement, while the other sought rectification based on a prior draft.

The respondent argued the matter should proceed to trial due to factual disputes.

The court determined that the matter could not be resolved on a paper record due to conflicting evidence and credibility issues regarding the drafting and execution of the agreement.

The court ordered the applications consolidated and directed them to proceed to trial.

Following a split decision on motions, the defendant sought $1,500 in costs for responding to relief the plaintiffs abandoned during submissions.

The plaintiffs argued for no costs, citing financial hardship.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to pay $500 in costs for the abandoned claims, but deferred payment until the final disposition of the action to avoid creating a barrier to the proceedings.

Following a bifurcated trial regarding the validity of a cohabitation agreement, the successful respondent sought costs on a full or partial indemnity basis.

The applicant argued for divided success and raised her inability to pay.

The court found the respondent was entirely successful but rejected the claim for elevated costs.

Applying principles of proportionality and considering the applicant's precarious financial circumstances, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at $18,885.80 and reduced them by 50%, ordering the applicant to pay $9,000.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on summary judgment, the defendants sought full indemnity costs against the plaintiff and its principal personally.

The court found that the plaintiff's principal had fabricated an agreement of purchase and sale to support the claim, constituting an abuse of process.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendants and held the principal jointly and severally liable for the costs due to his fraudulent conduct.

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion for extensive financial disclosure from the applicant, including business records, bank statements, and property valuations.

The applicant argued she did not keep business records after 2015 because she was exempt from filing income tax returns under the Indian Act.

The court granted the motion, holding that while the applicant may not have to keep records for tax purposes, she is still obligated to produce proper accounting records and valuations for the family law proceeding to determine income and property division.

The self-represented defendant brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused by the plaintiff's employees during cross-examinations on their affidavits filed in support of a summary judgment motion.

The defendant sought production of the plaintiff's entire loan files and answers regarding employee targets and knowledge of regulations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the requests amounted to a fishing expedition, lacked relevance to the issues on the summary judgment motion, and failed to meet the principle of proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant Estate Trustees sought the court's opinion and advice on interpreting a clause in the testator's will that granted one of her sons an option to purchase her 'farming business' for a fixed price.

The son argued that the testator's rental of the farm property to him constituted carrying on the farming business.

Applying the armchair rule, the court found that the testator intended the phrase to mean the active farming business she and her late husband had previously operated, not the passive rental of land.

As the testator was not carrying on the active farming business at her death, the option to purchase was declared ineffective and the farm property fell into the residue of the estate.

The parties, who share joint decision-making responsibility, disagreed on where their two children should attend school after the respondent moved to a new municipality.

The applicant brought a motion to have the children enrolled in a school within his catchment area, supported by the recommendation of an Office of the Children's Lawyer clinician.

The court applied the principles for choice of school disputes and found that enrolling the children in the applicant's catchment area was in their best interests, as it would minimize disruption to their existing community supports and better accommodate their special needs.

The parties, both self-represented, sought costs following a Motion to Change in a family law proceeding.

Both parties claimed costs for the time they took off work to attend court hearings.

The court held that self-represented litigants cannot be compensated for time spent attending court, as represented parties are not compensated for their own time attending court.

Given the history of constant litigation and rancour between the parties, the court declined to parse success on the various issues and ordered each party to bear their own costs.