David G. Price

The applicant brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt after the respondent unilaterally transferred two children to a different school despite a joint custody order requiring educational decisions to be made jointly or resolved through mediation or the court.

The court held that the unilateral transfer without the other parent’s consent or court authorization constituted a willful breach of the prior order.

Although the breach was established, the court declined to immediately order another school transfer due to insufficient evidence regarding the children’s best interests and the potential disruption.

Instead, the court made interim variations to the parenting arrangements, including changing the primary residence of one child to the applicant and extending access time.

The court also directed involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to assess custody and access issues.

Following a motion to change custody in which the father obtained sole custody of the child, the court determined costs of the proceeding.

The court applied the principles in Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and emphasized that costs serve to indemnify successful parties and sanction unreasonable litigation conduct.

The mother repeatedly breached prior court orders, advanced unsubstantiated allegations, resisted disclosure, and acted in bad faith, which significantly prolonged the litigation.

The court found the father's legal fees and disbursements reasonable and awarded costs on a full recovery basis.

The mother's financial circumstances and legal aid funding did not justify relieving her of liability for costs.

The defendant brought a motion to transfer four Toronto actions to Brampton so that they could be tried with two related Brampton actions arising from the same motor vehicle accident.

The motion relied on Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing transfers of proceedings between courts.

Although the accident occurred in Toronto and several Rule 13.1.02 factors appeared to favour Toronto as the venue, the evidentiary record lacked information regarding the convenience of parties and witnesses and whether judicial resources were available in the proposed receiving region.

The court also noted that the required consultation protocol with the Regional Senior Justices had not been followed.

The motion was therefore dismissed without prejudice to bringing a motion to transfer the Brampton actions to Toronto.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final consent order regarding custody and access after the respondent mother relocated with the children to Tobago and failed to return them for the Christmas holidays.

The father alleged the children were experiencing bullying and poor conditions in Tobago.

The court found a material change in circumstances and ordered temporary custody to the father, directing the children to remain in Ontario pending an assessment by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

Following dismissal of a motion to enforce an alleged settlement of a personal injury action, the court addressed the quantum of costs payable personally by the plaintiff’s former lawyer whose misleading communications had precipitated the motion.

The court reviewed the principles governing costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including fairness, reasonableness, proportionality, and the reasonable expectations of unsuccessful parties.

Although the successful parties sought higher amounts on a substantial indemnity scale, the court examined comparable settlement‑enforcement motions and determined that the reasonable range was significantly lower.

Costs were fixed at $11,127.20 payable to the plaintiff and $7,781.66 payable to the TTC.

Following several procedural motions in related fraud, foreclosure, and construction lien proceedings concerning contaminated industrial property, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving party had successfully obtained orders consolidating the actions, transferring the foreclosure proceeding to the same venue as the lien actions, and staying enforcement of any foreclosure order pending resolution of the fraud claim, while also resisting motions for further production.

Applying the principles governing costs under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Courts of Justice Act, the court held that the moving party was substantially successful and entitled to partial indemnity costs.

The court considered proportionality, complexity, and reasonable expectations of the parties in fixing the amount.

Costs were awarded jointly and severally against the responding parties, with additional costs awarded for an unnecessary adjournment attendance.

A family law motion concerning parenting time over the Christmas holiday period.

The parties consented to a schedule granting the respondent specified holiday access with the children on three defined periods between December 2013 and January 2014.

The court ordered the schedule on consent and adjourned the balance of the motion to a later date for further consideration.

The parties were granted leave to file additional materials before the adjourned hearing and costs were reserved.

Co‑owners of real property held as tenants in common disputed whether a prior agreement for one co‑owner to purchase the other’s interest remained binding after the closing date passed without financing.

The respondent sought specific performance of the original agreement and argued that her solicitor had negligently failed to request a further extension and had consented to judgment without authority.

The court found the agreement had lapsed because time was of the essence and payment was not tendered by the extended closing date.

It further held that the parties’ consent judgment permitting the property to be listed and sold was valid and enforceable because the solicitor had apparent authority and enforcement would not create injustice.

The moving party was granted leave to accept a higher third‑party offer and bind both co‑owners.

Following a successful application for damages arising from the wrongful termination of a commercial lease, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful tenant sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $28,000 after obtaining damages and return of a security deposit totaling $49,735 following adjustment by the Court of Appeal.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including proportionality, reasonable expectations of the parties, and the effect of a prior offer to settle.

Although the tenant’s offer did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 49.10, the court considered it under Rule 49.13 and found the landlord should have reasonably accepted it.

Costs were awarded partly on a substantial indemnity scale for the hearing and partially on a partial indemnity basis for the remaining work.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding involving custody of two children, the court addressed a request for costs arising from a motion to adjourn the scheduled trial.

The Office of the Children’s Lawyer sought an eight‑month adjournment shortly before trial due to scheduling conflicts and illness of the clinical investigator, which the father opposed.

The court ultimately granted a shorter adjournment to an earlier date than requested.

Applying rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the objectives of costs awards, the court found the result represented divided success and noted concerns about the lack of detail provided to justify the adjournment request.

Exercising its discretion, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs of the motion.

The respondent in the underlying family proceeding sought a declaration that a costs sanction imposed for civil contempt had been extinguished by her discharge from bankruptcy.

The sanction arose from repeated breaches of court-ordered access involving the parties’ child.

The court held that it had jurisdiction to determine whether the debt survived bankruptcy.

Applying s.178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the court found the costs award constituted a sanction similar to a fine or penalty imposed for an offence and therefore survived bankruptcy.

The court also rejected the argument that the debt had been satisfied through alleged set-off for childcare, airfare expenses, or matrimonial property proceeds.

Following the dismissal of the father's motion for leave to appeal a temporary joint custody order, the self-represented mother sought her costs.

The court found the father's motion was unreasonable and should not have been brought.

The court awarded the mother costs on a substantial indemnity scale, valuing her time at $200 per hour, recognizing that self-represented litigants who perform work normally done by a lawyer are entitled to be compensated fairly.

The father was ordered to pay costs of $12,091.85.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion for leave to appeal a temporary custody order, the self-represented applicant sought costs.

The court found the respondent's motion was unreasonable and should not have been brought, warranting costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court held that the applicant, though self-represented, performed the work of a lawyer efficiently and was entitled to be compensated for her time at a rate of $200 per hour.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of $12,091.85.

The respondent mother brought a motion to find the applicant father in contempt and to strike his pleadings due to his failure to provide financial disclosure and his delay in paying the retainer for a court-ordered assessment of the children.

The court found that the father willfully breached multiple court orders, prejudicing the mother's ability to determine his income for support purposes and delaying the resolution of custody issues.

Applying the test for striking pleadings under Rule 14(23) of the Family Law Rules, the court struck the father's pleadings on the issues of equalization and support, allowing the mother to proceed to an uncontested hearing on those issues.

The court declined to strike his pleadings regarding custody and access in the best interests of the children.

The respondent spouse brought a motion for interim spousal support following a short marriage that ended shortly after the respondent immigrated to Canada through the applicant’s sponsorship.

The court considered whether a spouse who emigrates to Canada through a sponsorship undertaking and suffers career disruption may be entitled to enhanced interim support despite the short duration of the marriage.

The court found that the respondent suffered economic disadvantage by leaving an established career abroad and entering a labour market where her credentials were not recognized.

The court held that the sponsorship undertaking and the respondent’s transitional needs justified departure from the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Interim spousal support and related educational expenses were ordered to facilitate the respondent’s path to self‑sufficiency.

Following a successful motion for child support, retroactive support, and post‑secondary expenses, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The court addressed whether a litigant represented through a subsidized legal services plan was limited to recovering costs based on the reduced hourly rate actually charged by counsel.

Applying the objectives of costs awards under the Family Law Rules and the Courts of Justice Act, the court held that the retainer arrangement did not cap recoverable costs and that costs should reflect reasonable market rates.

Because the respondent behaved unreasonably in disclosure and failed to accept favourable settlement offers, the applicant was entitled to costs on a substantial indemnity basis, including costs of the settlement conference and motion.

Travel time was reduced by 50% and the final costs award was fixed at $19,034 inclusive of HST.

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 20.04 and 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking judgment enforcing a purported settlement allegedly accepted by the plaintiff’s solicitor.

The court found that the solicitor falsely represented that he had instructions to accept the settlement offer and acted without authority from the plaintiff.

The evidence established that the plaintiff had never agreed to the settlement and had not provided instructions directly or indirectly to accept it.

The court further held that it was not reasonable for the defendants to assume that the solicitor had authority to settle without explicit client instructions in light of prior communications.

The motion to enforce the settlement was dismissed, and the plaintiff’s former solicitor was ordered personally to pay the costs of the motion on a substantial indemnity scale under Rule 57.07.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment.

Four days before the hearing, the defendant delivered a detailed responding affidavit alleging accounting irregularities.

The plaintiff sought an adjournment to deliver reply evidence and cross-examine the affiant.

The defendant opposed, arguing Rule 20 does not permit reply evidence by a moving party.

The court held that the moving party in a summary judgment motion may deliver reply evidence to ensure the court can gain a full appreciation of the facts.

The adjournment was granted, leave to file reply evidence was given, and the defendant was ordered to pay costs thrown away.

Following a successful motion setting aside an ex parte custody order, the applicant sought costs totalling $46,772.33.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including success, complexity, reasonableness of the parties’ conduct, proportionality, and expectations of the parties.

The court found the respondent had acted in bad faith by misleading the court in obtaining the earlier ex parte order, including failing to disclose prior custody proceedings and a pending criminal assault charge, and by mischaracterizing the applicant’s mental health and circumstances.

The court also held that costs associated with a mandatory case conference preceding the motion could properly be included in the motion’s costs.

Given the respondent’s bad faith and the applicant’s complete success, the court ordered full indemnity costs.

The applicant elector brought an application under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act alleging that the respondent town councillor had a conflict of interest when he voted to approve a grant to the local Chamber of Commerce.

The applicant argued the respondent had a pecuniary interest because he owned a business and property in the town and was a member of the Chamber.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the respondent did not have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the grant.

The court further held that even if a pecuniary interest existed, it was exempt as being insignificant and in common with electors generally, and any contravention would have been saved as a good faith error in judgment.