David Gordon Thwaites

In a family law proceeding, the court addressed costs following a motion where the husband sought leave to bring a further motion for disclosure concerning the wife’s income from a family trust pursuant to an earlier court order.

The husband argued he was successful and presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The wife and the family trust contended that the leave granted was significantly narrower than the broad disclosure sought in the husband’s motion materials and argued they should receive costs.

The court determined that the issue of costs should be reserved to the judge hearing the forthcoming disclosure motion, who would be best positioned to assess the scope and outcome of the disclosure request.

The applicant brought a motion to vary a consent order respecting child support and parenting arrangements, alleging a material change in circumstances due to increased parenting time, higher childcare costs, increased debt, and unrealized income expectations.

The court reviewed the legal test for variation of support orders, including the requirement that a material change be unforeseeable and significant since the last order.

The court found the alleged financial pressures, lifestyle differences between households, and failed income expectations did not constitute a material change in circumstances.

The applicant was therefore not entitled to vary the support or access terms.

The court also enforced the parties’ obligation to equally share Montessori childcare expenses and required payment of the applicant’s outstanding share.

Two defendants jointly charged with assault causing bodily harm brought separate applications under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking a stay of proceedings based on breach of their right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The offence occurred on April 18, 2010, and the application was heard on February 14, 2012, representing over 20 months of delay.

The court found approximately 12 months of unjustified delay after accounting for neutral time and inherent case requirements.

The delay was primarily attributable to the crown's failure to recognize that an essential witness required a Punjabi interpreter, leading to the adjournment of the first trial date set for May 19, 2011.

The court granted the applications and entered a stay of proceedings for both defendants.