David G. Price

The plaintiffs obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction and certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) against assets of several defendants after discovering alleged fraud by their accountant.

A co-defendant spouse moved to discharge the CPL registered against her property and to lift the freezing of her personal bank accounts, asserting sole ownership and lack of knowledge of the alleged fraud.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to provide full and frank disclosure and did not establish a strong prima facie case linking the spouse’s property or accounts to the alleged fraud or demonstrating a proprietary claim.

Given the absence of evidence, the prolonged delay following the ex parte order, and the prejudice to the affected party, the court lifted the injunction and discharged the CPL against the spouse’s property.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion without notice seeking a Certificate of Pending Litigation over residential property owned by the defendants, asserting a resulting trust arising from an alleged $130,000 loan used to purchase the property.

The property was under agreement of purchase and sale with closing imminent, and the plaintiff argued a CPL was necessary to protect his interest before proceeds were dissipated in the defendants’ separation.

The court held that ex parte relief of this nature requires extraordinary urgency and careful scrutiny, particularly where it would effectively operate as an injunction affecting third-party purchasers.

The evidentiary record contained no documentation of the alleged loan or indebtedness.

The court declined to issue a CPL without notice and adjourned the motion to permit service on the defendants and further evidence.

The father brought a motion to vary a final consent order to expand his access to his two children.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing it should not be heard because the father was in arrears of child support and costs, and denying she had breached the access order.

The court held that the father's arrears did not preclude his motion because he had reduced them and provided a reasonable explanation.

The court found the mother had intentionally breached the access order by prioritizing the children's hockey commitments over the father's access.

Finding a material change in circumstances, the court expanded the father's access to at least 35%, rescinded a prior restraining order against him, and changed the access exchange location to reduce conflict.

The plaintiff sold a restaurant business to the defendant father, who negotiated the purchase and signed the agreement.

The father later stopped making payments, leaving a balance of $30,000.

The plaintiff sued the father, his son, and the son's corporation for the balance.

The court found that the father acted on his own behalf and did not have ostensible authority to bind his son or the corporation, dismissing the claims against them.

The father was ordered to pay the outstanding balance, subject to a $4,500 set-off for a leased dishwasher that the plaintiff had misrepresented as an owned asset.

Following the dismissal of a civil action for delay, a defendant sought substantial indemnity costs on the basis that the plaintiffs had made serious allegations of professional misconduct against a lawyer without evidentiary foundation.

The court reviewed the governing principles for fixing costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While allegations of misconduct against professionals can justify elevated costs where they are reckless or unfounded, the court found insufficient evidence to conclude the plaintiffs’ claims met the threshold of reprehensible conduct.

The defendant was therefore entitled to costs on a partial indemnity scale only.

The amount of costs was ordered to be determined by an Assessment Officer based on the hourly rates set out in the defendant’s Costs Outline.

The self-represented plaintiff successfully moved for leave to appeal an order requiring him to pay $30,000 into court as security for costs.

The court then determined the costs of the leave motion.

The defendants argued costs should be in the cause, but the court ordered costs payable forthwith to preserve the plaintiff's access to justice.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01(1), the court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $4,135 on a partial indemnity scale, valuing his time at $100 per hour.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim arising from the alleged purchase of a machining business and sought judgment on a counterclaim for the unpaid balance of the purchase price.

The plaintiff alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, failure to transfer shares, undisclosed tax liabilities, and other equitable claims including unjust enrichment and constructive trust.

The court held that the record disclosed genuine issues for trial regarding whether the shares were ever transferred, whether misrepresentations were made, and whether the plaintiff’s claim was discoverable only after learning of the alleged misconduct in 2010.

The court also found the claim was not statute‑barred under the Limitations Act due to the discoverability principle and possible fraudulent concealment.

Summary judgment was refused and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.

The defendant moved to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff for repayment of a loan secured by a Sharia-compliant second mortgage.

The defendant argued that his monthly payments were repayments of principal, not interest, which his faith forbids.

The court found that the defendant satisfactorily explained his failure to deliver a defence, moved promptly to set aside the judgment, and raised a potentially meritorious defence due to ambiguities in the financing agreements.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was granted.

The applicant beneficiary brought an application against estate trustees alleging they improperly caused estate funds to pay legal fees incurred in litigation that primarily advanced their personal beneficiary interests.

The dispute arose from prior litigation concerning ownership of a family home that had vested in estate beneficiaries under the Estates Administration Act.

The court held that estate trustees are not entitled to indemnification from estate assets for legal costs incurred to protect their own personal interests, and where both personal and estate interests are engaged, trustees must segregate the costs.

The court found the impugned legal fees were incurred in the respondents’ personal capacities and ordered reimbursement of the applicant’s proportionate share.

The court also held that trustee compensation taken without court approval or beneficiary consent was improper and required repayment of the applicant’s share.

In a divorce proceeding, the applicant husband sought extensive financial disclosure from the respondent wife regarding a family trust (Oceana Trust) and gifts she received from her late mother.

The husband argued this information was necessary to impute income to the wife for spousal support purposes and to calculate net family property.

The court reviewed the principles for imputing income from capital and trusts, finding that the historical gifts and trust distributions were sporadic capital amounts used for specific purchases, not income.

The court ordered limited disclosure of recent gifts and estate distributions but dismissed the husband's requests for historical trust financial statements, tax returns, and other remote documents, finding them irrelevant and an unwarranted intrusion on the privacy of other beneficiaries.

The applicant brought an urgent motion seeking release of funds from accounts frozen by prior court order in order to pay legal fees for an upcoming trial management conference and trial in a child support variation proceeding.

The court found no urgency justifying the short notice motion and adjourned it to permit the respondent to file responding materials.

In assessing whether interim release of funds would be appropriate, the court reviewed principles governing partial distributions of funds held pending family law determinations, emphasizing that a parent’s obligation to support children takes priority over payment of legal fees.

The court conducted a provisional analysis of potential child support arrears and section 7 expenses and determined that further financial disclosure from both parties was required before considering any release of funds.

Following competing motions in a family law proceeding concerning child support, financial disclosure, and related relief, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant had been largely successful in obtaining orders for child support arrears, ongoing support based on prior income, and disclosure, while the respondent had failed to make adequate disclosure and ceased contributing to children’s expenses after severance income ended.

The court considered the principles governing costs under the Family Law Rules and the Courts of Justice Act, including proportionality, party conduct, and the effect of a reasonable offer to settle.

Although the applicant sought substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle, the court found the criteria under Rule 18(14) were not fully met.

The court nevertheless awarded full recovery on a partial indemnity basis, concluding the respondent’s conduct justified the applicant recovering the entirety of her reasonable costs.

In a family law proceeding involving divorce, custody, child support, and property equalization, the applicant brought a motion seeking to strike the respondent’s affidavit and revise the timetable for a pending summary judgment motion.

The respondent, self‑represented and recently employed, requested an adjournment on the basis that she could not attend the scheduled hearing.

The court considered the absence of prejudice to the applicant and the respondent’s circumstances, including new employment and recent illness.

The motion was adjourned with directions requiring the respondent to deliver updated financial disclosure and medical documentation if illness prevented attendance.

Costs were reserved to the next hearing date.

Four employees commenced wrongful dismissal actions after being terminated without reasonable notice or payment in lieu.

The actions were settled, but the parties were unable to agree on costs, leaving the court to determine responsibility and quantum.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles articulated in leading appellate authority on costs, the court assessed factors including indemnity, proportionality, hourly rates, hours spent, complexity, conduct of the parties, and reasonable expectations regarding costs liability.

The court found the employees were the successful parties and entitled to partial indemnity costs.

The defendant’s conduct did not justify elevated costs, but also did not warrant depriving the employees of their presumptive entitlement.

The court awarded each employee $8,000 in partial indemnity costs inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant mother was arrested and removed from her home following an altercation with the respondent father, who claimed she assaulted him.

The mother brought an urgent motion to dispense with a case conference, seeking exclusive possession of her solely-owned home and temporary sole custody of their one-year-old child.

The court found that the circumstances, including the mother's removal from her home and separation from her child based on an uncorroborated complaint, justified dispensing with the case conference.

The court granted the mother exclusive possession of the home, finding the father's constructive trust claim unsubstantiated, and awarded her temporary sole custody of the child with a detailed access schedule for the father.

The applicant brought a motion to change child support, which the respondent eventually settled by accepting an offer.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The court found that the respondent engaged in bad faith by deliberately failing to make timely financial disclosure, which unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $32,223.69, representing partial recovery up to the date of her offer to settle and full recovery thereafter.

The respondent father obtained an Ontario divorce order after the parties’ separation and ongoing international custody dispute involving their child, who had been retained in Poland by the mother.

The mother moved to set aside the divorce order on the basis that it was granted before the expiry of the 60‑day period to file an answer under the Family Law Rules.

The court acknowledged the procedural irregularity but held that the moving party remained in contempt of prior Ontario orders requiring the return of the child and production of medical records.

The court found it would be an abuse of process to allow the motion while the contempt continued and where the practical effect would facilitate further defiance of the Ontario custody order.

The motion was stayed pending the mother purging her contempt and the matter was referred for possible international judicial communication with Polish courts.

The father brought a motion for summary judgment on his application to terminate child support for his 21-year-old son.

He argued the son was no longer a 'child of the marriage' due to poor academic performance and estrangement, and that his own income had decreased following a heart attack.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the son's status, concluding he remained a child of the marriage as he was enrolled in post-secondary studies and there was no evidence he unjustifiably repudiated the relationship with his father.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the father's income and ability to pay, dismissing the summary judgment motion and ordering further financial disclosure.

The applicant father brought a motion to have the respondent mother found in contempt of a prior custody order and to vary the order by granting him primary residence of the parties’ children.

The prior order required notice and consent or court authorization before relocating the children outside Halton Region.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent moved the children to Orangeville without consent or court approval, constituting contempt and a material change in circumstances affecting the children’s best interests under the Children’s Law Reform Act.

Given the respondent’s relocation and educational schedule, which significantly impaired the father’s access and her ability to care for the children, the court granted an interim variation transferring the children’s primary residence to the father pending a final hearing.

The self-represented plaintiff sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order requiring him to pay $30,000 into court as security for costs.

The underlying action involved allegations of false arrest and excessive force by mall security officers.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision because the motion judge failed to explicitly find that the action was frivolous and vexatious, did not review the evidentiary record, and improperly relied on findings from a separate summary judgment motion involving different defendants.

The court also found the issue raised matters of public importance regarding access to justice.