David L. Edwards

The Respondent father brought a motion to change a previous order, seeking joint decision-making with final say on health matters and equal parenting time for the parties' child.

The Applicant mother sought to maintain primary residence and final decision-making power.

The court found a material change in circumstances and, after considering the child's best interests, ordered equal parenting time on a 2-2-3 schedule.

Decision-making authority was split, with the father having final say on health matters and the mother on education matters, in recognition of their communication issues and respective capabilities.

The court also mandated the use of a communication app and ordered compliance with previous orders regarding documentation.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a successful motion by a Judgment Creditor to enforce two notices of garnishment against funds held by Renaud Law on behalf of two Debtors.

The Judgment Creditor sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis.

One Debtor requested deferral of the costs decision pending a motion to set aside the default judgment.

The court found the garnishment motion necessary and complex due to issues raised by the Debtors.

It declined to defer the costs decision, noting the delay by the Debtors in challenging the default judgment.

The court awarded the Judgment Creditor costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding the amount fair and reasonable.

This decision addresses the costs of a successful motion brought by Azzam Tawachi (defendant to counterclaim) to dismiss a counterclaim against him by Athena Donair Distributors Ltd. (plaintiff by counterclaim).

The court found the motion necessary due to Athena's actions in contravening the Construction Lien Act.

Tawachi was awarded partial indemnity costs, fixed at $4,688.53, inclusive of HST, payable by Athena within 30 days.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the applicant successfully obtained an order for in-person schooling for the parties' child, and the remaining issue of residency was subsequently resolved by Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis, while the respondent argued for no costs or partial indemnity.

The court found the applicant was the successful party regarding the schooling issue and was entitled to some costs.

However, the respondent's conduct was not deemed unreasonable enough to warrant full recovery costs.

The court considered the importance and complexity of the issues and the parties' resolution of the second issue.

This decision addresses costs following two motions concerning matrimonial property and spousal support.

The court had ordered the applicant to purchase the matrimonial property and increased spousal support, though not to the extent sought by the applicant.

The respondent was granted leave to sell two properties.

The court found success to be mixed, with the applicant slightly more successful, and attributed greater fault for the delay in selling the matrimonial home to the respondent.

However, no bad faith was found on either side, and the applicant did not achieve a result more favourable than her offer to settle.

The respondent was ordered to pay fixed costs of $10,000 to the applicant.

The court heard two motions concerning the sale of the former matrimonial residence and adjustments to spousal support.

The respondent also sought to sell a jointly held Florida property and two Ontario properties.

The court found the respondent primarily at fault for the delay in selling the matrimonial home and ordered the applicant to purchase the respondent's interest in it under specific terms.

Interim spousal support was varied, with the respondent's income assessed at $200,000 and the applicant's at $20,000, resulting in a monthly payment of $3,675.

The non-depletion order was varied to permit the respondent to sell other properties, subject to conditions preventing asset dissipation.

The court declined jurisdiction over the sale of the Florida property and ordered the applicant to provide an accounting of chattels sold.

Joshua West, a plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident case, sought substantial indemnity costs following a jury verdict awarding him $710,000 in damages.

The defendant, Robin West, opposed the amount and sought costs against the co-plaintiff, Robert West, whose claim was dismissed at trial.

The court, applying factors under Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, reduced Joshua West's requested fees, finding that two senior counsel were not required and substantial indemnity applied only from the date of his Rule 49 offer.

The court also allocated a portion of preparation time to Robert West's dismissed claim.

Ultimately, Joshua West was awarded $225,000 in fees plus $67,554.49 in net disbursements, while Robert West was ordered to pay the defendant $10,000 in costs.

No costs were awarded for a mixed-result motion regarding calling Robin West as a witness.

The Applicant, Sarah Stoughton, sought costs following a 10-day trial where she was largely successful on issues of custody, primary residence, and child support.

The Respondent, Jessica O'Ney, argued for no costs.

The court found the Applicant to be the successful party and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $19,000 inclusive of HST.

The court declined to make the costs enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as only a small portion of the trial involved child support.

Additionally, the court determined the Respondent's 2018 income for child support purposes to be $27,889.40 Cdn and ordered monthly child support of $235 commencing September 1, 2019.

This judgment addresses a custody and parenting time dispute between two mothers, Sarah and Jessica, regarding their four-year-old son, Rory.

The primary issue was determining Rory's primary residence and school location, as the parents lived in different countries (Ontario, Canada and New York, USA) and the current equal parenting schedule was impractical for full-time schooling.

The court found joint custody inappropriate due to poor parental communication and awarded sole custody and primary residence to Sarah, with Rory to attend school in the Niagara Region of Ontario.

Specific parenting time was ordered for Jessica, along with child support.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash rulings by Justice Colvin in an ongoing appeal.

The rulings disallowed the applicant's choice of agent (who was not a licensed paralegal or lawyer) and refused an adjournment.

The applicant also sought to remove Justice Colvin and amend the appeal.

The court dismissed the application for certiorari, finding no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

The judge's decision to disqualify the agent was upheld due to the agent's failure to comply with duties and responsibilities, particularly the "trial by ambush" tactic of not providing advance notice.

The refusal to grant an adjournment was also upheld as the applicant should have been prepared to proceed.

The court noted that the substantive appeal had not been heard and could be re-argued before Justice Colvin.

This costs endorsement followed a successful summary judgment motion brought by the defendant Gerlandina Jones, which dismissed the plaintiff's claim as statute-barred.

The court considered Rule 57.01 factors and Rule 49 offers.

It determined that a defendant moving for summary judgment should be treated as a plaintiff for Rule 49 purposes.

The defendant was awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of her Rule 49 offer and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter, totaling $25,000 plus HST and $6,376.22 in disbursements.

The defendant Charlotte Marino, having successfully obtained summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing for no costs.

The court, applying Rule 57.01, found Charlotte Marino entitled to costs but deemed the time docketed by her counsel excessive.

The court awarded Charlotte Marino $30,000 plus HST for fees and $13,531.78 for disbursements, to be paid by the plaintiff.

The court declined to award costs against a non-party.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, spousal support, and various financial payments.

The respondent father sought 50/50 custody, opposed spousal support, and most financial claims.

The court awarded joint custody, with primary residence to the mother, but found the mother more responsible for communication difficulties.

Spousal support was dismissed due to the mother's deemed income and lack of demonstrated need, and the father's difficult financial position.

Child support was maintained as per a temporary order, with arrears paid at a reduced rate.

The court also made various orders regarding parenting time and specific financial claims, largely favouring the father on the financial disputes.

This decision addresses a cost endorsement following an 11-day jury trial where the plaintiff's negligence claim against the defendant, Sears Canada Inc., was largely unsuccessful.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs against the plaintiff and a portion of costs against OHIP.

The court dismissed the claim for costs against OHIP, finding that its statutory subrogation claim was not assessed and had no significant impact on the trial.

For the plaintiff, the court considered the defendant's Rule 49 offer to settle, the overriding principle of reasonableness, and various factors under Rule 57.01(1), including the complexity of the case, the amount claimed and recovered, and counsel rates.

The court fixed a reasonable cost award against the plaintiff at $200,000, inclusive of HST, to be paid within 30 days.

Maryann Kutlesa initiated an action under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act to set aside the transfer of a 50% interest in a cottage lot from her ex-husband Jozo Kutlesa's company (1349241 Ontario Inc.) to his uncle, John Kotsiou.

She also sought a constructive trust over the interest.

John Kotsiou counterclaimed against Maryann for post-transfer expenses and cross-claimed against Jozo Kutlesa for indemnification.

The court found that Jozo Kutlesa's intent in making the conveyance was fraudulent, but John Kotsiou was protected under section 3 of the Act due to good faith and lack of notice.

Consequently, Maryann's claims were dismissed.

John's counterclaim against Maryann for past operational costs and mortgage payments was dismissed due to his exclusive possession of the property and Jozo's partial contribution.

John's cross-claim against Jozo for outstanding mortgage indemnification was granted.

Nuzhat Mamoon was charged with fraud exceeding $5,000, contrary to s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

The Crown alleged that Mamoon defrauded eight individuals by making false representations about investment opportunities in non-existent businesses (catering, laptop sales, fashion shows) and a property transfer, promising unrealistic and guaranteed profits.

The court found Mamoon guilty, concluding that she intentionally used deceit and falsehood to obtain funds from vulnerable, financially unsophisticated individuals, often leveraging her charitable organization to gain trust.

The total amount defrauded from the complainants exceeded $5,000.

Following the dismissal of a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that a will was valid, the court determined costs in estate litigation.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs against the applicant personally, arguing the motion was wasteful and unreasonable.

The court held that the use of summary judgment was not improper and that the circumstances did not justify personal liability for costs.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded partial indemnity costs and ordered that the costs be paid from the estate assets.

The moving party sought to discharge a certificate of pending litigation obtained ex parte by the responding party in connection with a disputed agreement of purchase and sale for development land.

The motion alleged failure to provide full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion, absence of a reasonable claim to an interest in land, and requested discretionary discharge under s. 136(6) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court held that the affidavit filed on the ex parte motion adequately disclosed the material facts and fairly summarized the parties’ positions.

The responding party demonstrated a reasonable claim for specific performance and established that the property was unique in light of its intended commercial redevelopment and rezoning efforts.

Balancing the equitable factors, including potential harm and difficulty of assessing damages, the court declined to discharge the certificate.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff pedestrian was awarded damages less than the defendant's Rule 49 offer to settle, the court determined the costs payable.

The plaintiff was awarded costs up to the date of the offer, and the defendant was awarded costs thereafter.

The court reduced the defendant's costs due to a late concession on liability and the improper testimony of the defendant's expert witness, resulting in a net costs award payable to the plaintiff.

Following a trial judgment awarding damages to the plaintiff and dismissing the defendants’ counterclaim, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff relied on a Rule 49 offer to settle that was more favourable than the judgment obtained and sought partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The defendants argued the claimed fees were disproportionate to the amount at issue.

The court held that the plaintiff’s rates and hours were reasonable given the claim and counterclaim and that the Rule 49 offer satisfied the requirements of Rule 49.10(1).

The court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, plus disbursements and HST.