Daniel Toppari

In this family costs decision following trial, the successful applicant sought substantial costs on a full indemnity basis relying on an earlier offer to settle.

The court held that although the applicant was entitled to costs under the presumptive rule for successful parties, the offer did not trigger full indemnity consequences because the final order preserved a future review mechanism for spousal support that the offer would have waived.

The court further held that the responding party's precarious financial circumstances were relevant to quantum, though not entitlement.

Costs were fixed at $6,000 inclusive on a partial indemnity basis, payable within 180 days.

The court issued supplementary reasons to correct the terms of a final order regarding the parties' matrimonial home and joint line of credit.

The corrected order requires the applicant to pay half of the mortgage, taxes, and insurance pending the sale of the home, and to indemnify the respondent for their joint line of credit.

The parties' other claims, including for net family property and spousal support, were dismissed.

The parties separated after a short marriage.

The applicant sought the sale of the matrimonial home and division of net family property, while the respondent sought spousal support and exclusive possession.

The court ordered the matrimonial home to be listed for sale and the parties to share carrying costs.

The court found the respondent was entitled to spousal support on a non-compensatory basis, but declined to order periodic or lump sum payments, finding that the applicant's assumption of the parties' joint line of credit debt fully offset any spousal support obligation.

The applicant was ordered to indemnify the respondent for the joint debt.

This was a costs endorsement following a grandparent access motion.

The applicants had obtained limited access, less than requested, and sought partial indemnity costs based on alleged litigation conduct and partial success.

The respondent argued there should be no order as to costs because success was divided and cooperation had been shown.

The court held that costs should be in the cause so that the judge hearing the full evidentiary record could determine who should ultimately bear the costs of the motion.

The responding spouse brought a motion to vary long-standing support orders made following divorce.

The court considered whether the spousal support order, which was based on an "expected" income and set for a fixed duration, could be varied due to subsequent fluctuations in the payor’s income.

It held that the parties had intentionally fixed the spousal support amount for a defined period despite known income volatility, and variation was not warranted.

Child support, however, was reconsidered.

The court terminated child support when the child ceased to be a child of the marriage and later ordered support during post-secondary studies based on an imputed income.

The applicant sought temporary custody of two children pending trial in a high‑conflict parenting dispute.

Evidence included a detailed Office of the Children’s Lawyer report recommending parallel parenting and a Children’s Aid Society affidavit recommending sole custody to the respondent with supervised access.

The court found both parents demonstrated poor cooperation and had exposed the children to conflict but determined the OCL investigation was more objective and persuasive.

The court rejected reliance on uncorroborated statements from a child experiencing emotional difficulties and declined to impose supervised parenting time.

A temporary parallel parenting regime with divided residential time and shared decision‑making responsibilities was ordered pending trial.

The plaintiff subcontractor sued the defendant contractor in Small Claims Court for unpaid invoices.

During closing arguments, the trial judge raised the issue of a trust claim under the Construction Lien Act, which had not been pleaded.

The trial judge found the defendant liable for breach of trust.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction to hear trust claims within its monetary limits, it was unfair to the defendant to grant judgment on an unpleaded trust claim, as it deprived him of the opportunity to adduce evidence to discharge his burden as trustee.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.