David G. Price

Following an 8.5-year marriage and separation, the applicant (V.K.) sought sole custody and supervised access for their two children, while the respondent (A.K.) sought unsupervised access.

The applicant's request for supervised access stemmed from an incident where the respondent damaged property and breached an undertaking after an early case conference.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" principle under the Divorce Act and Children's Law Reform Act, granted V.K. sole custody but allowed A.K. unsupervised access for at least 35% of the children's time.

The court found insufficient compelling evidence to justify supervised access based on a single incident of property violence, but stipulated that any future violence would trigger an immediate review of the parenting arrangement and costs.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer was also requested to become involved.

This costs endorsement follows a successful motion by L.M. for state-funded counsel to appeal a summary judgment that made her three children Crown wards with no access.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) opposed the motion, arguing the appeal lacked merit, despite L.M. meeting all other criteria for state-funded counsel.

The court found the CAS's opposition unreasonable, particularly given the low merit threshold for such applications and L.M.'s constitutional right to a fair hearing.

The court awarded L.M. costs on a full recovery basis, totaling $12,482.49, emphasizing that costs orders serve to sanction unreasonable conduct and promote access to justice, especially when a reasonable offer to settle was rejected.

The defendants in a medical malpractice and wrongful death action brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the Family Law Act claims of the deceased's partner, arguing he did not meet the definition of a spouse.

The defendants also moved to remove him as the litigation guardian for the deceased's minor grandchildren.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the partner's spousal status based on conflicting evidence.

The court also dismissed the motion to remove the litigation guardian, finding him qualified, indifferent to the outcome, and not adverse in interest to the minors.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion where the plaintiff, Environmental Building Solutions Corporation, successfully obtained leave to amend its statement of claim in a construction lien action.

The defendants had opposed the motion, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The court found the plaintiff's motion was brought within the limitation period and granted leave to amend.

Consequently, the plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff, finding the hourly rate claimed by counsel reasonable after adjusting for inflation and the time spent proportionate to the issues.

The defendants, 2420124 Ontario Limited and 2420125 Ontario Limited, were ordered to pay $14,415.96 in costs, including fees, HST, and disbursements.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion for child and spousal support brought by Mona Ayesh against Abdelsalam Zeidan.

Ms. Ayesh was successful in obtaining support orders.

She sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while Mr. Zeidan claimed his own costs, arguing his offer to settle was more favourable.

The court found Ms. Ayesh was presumptively entitled to costs due to her success and Mr. Zeidan's unreasonable conduct, specifically his failure to provide full financial disclosure, which amounted to bad faith under the Family Law Rules.

Consequently, the court awarded Ms. Ayesh full recovery costs of $14,133.48, enforceable as child support.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the applicant, Jennifer Tovell, for child support and a successful opposition to the respondent, Douglas Jamieson's, cross-motion for shared parenting and set-off child support.

The court found Mr. Jamieson's conduct unreasonable, including providing false and misleading evidence and failing to accept a reasonable offer to settle, which amounted to bad faith.

Consequently, the court awarded Ms. Tovell costs on a full recovery basis, fixed at $8,702.41, inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements, enforceable as support.

Concetta Angeloni, through her litigation guardians, successfully moved for directions, an accounting of her deceased husband's management of her property under a Power of Attorney, and an accounting of his estate assets by the Estate Trustee, Maria Lugonia.

The court also granted orders to prohibit dissipation of estate assets and compel document production and examinations.

This endorsement addresses the costs of these motions, which were awarded to the applicant on a substantial indemnity basis due to the respondents' unreasonable delays and failure to respond to settlement offers.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion brought by the plaintiffs for a further and better affidavit of documents and a timetable for trial.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs, finding that the defendants' unexplained delay, particularly given the plaintiffs' advanced age and frail health, constituted bad faith.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the complexity, importance, and conduct of the parties.

While adjusting the plaintiffs' claimed fees for waiting time and excessive photocopy charges, the court largely upheld the claim, noting the defendants' failure to provide their own dockets for comparison.

Following the breakdown of a long common-law relationship marked by extensive credibility disputes and deficient disclosure, the court determined beneficial ownership of the family home, allocation of a joint line of credit, retroactive and ongoing child support, section 7 expenses, and spousal support.

Applying unjust enrichment and constructive trust principles, the court found the responding party held a 50% beneficial interest in the home notwithstanding title registered 99% to the moving party and 1% to the responding party, and ordered sale with equal division subject to adjustments.

The court rejected significant portions of the moving party’s evidence, drew adverse inferences from non-disclosure, denied spousal support, and held the older children were not entitled to the claimed support periods, while awarding support and proportionate education and other section 7 expenses for the younger children.

No costs were awarded.

This costs endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion by the Respondent, Nancy Spencer, to set aside a default judgment obtained by the Applicant, Quirino Pescarino.

Ms. Spencer sought costs on a full recovery basis, relying on her success and two unaccepted offers to settle.

Mr. Pescarino claimed his costs of the motion and wasted costs of the proceeding.

The court found Ms. Spencer entitled to her costs on a full recovery basis due to Mr. Pescarino's unreasonable refusal of her settlement offers and his failure to establish her unreasonable conduct.

Mr. Pescarino's claim for wasted costs was dismissed without prejudice to claim them at trial.

The applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis following a successful motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for failing to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The court found that the respondent's evasive responses and repeated breaches of court orders amounted to bad faith and a deliberate attempt to frustrate the applicant's claims.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a full recovery basis, fixed at $30,539.97, noting that the respondent's conduct justified the higher scale of costs.

The Applicants were awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale following the dismissal of the Respondents' motion to vary or set aside an earlier order appointing an auditor.

The Respondents had alleged fraud or mistake by the Applicants' affiant, Mr. Singh, regarding undisclosed liabilities and an audit waiver.

The court found Mr. Singh's liabilities immaterial and the undisclosed facts would not have changed the outcome of the audit order.

The Respondents' conduct, including unsubstantiated fraud allegations and deliberate delaying tactics, justified the substantial indemnity costs.

The parties separated after a common law relationship during which they had two children.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and a constructive trust over the jointly owned home and the respondent father's other rental properties.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother with liberal access to the father.

The court imputed additional rental income to the father and ordered retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses.

Finding that the father was unjustly enriched by the mother's financial and domestic contributions, which allowed him to acquire and maintain multiple rental properties, the court vested the jointly owned family home solely in the mother as a constructive trust remedy.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary his child support obligations, which was dismissed due to his deliberate failure to comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The respondent mother sought her costs of the motion.

The court found that the applicant's persistent non-disclosure amounted to bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Consequently, the court awarded the respondent her costs on a full recovery basis, fixed at $16,525.29.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of legal costs following motions concerning the sale of a matrimonial home, equalization of net family property, and child support.

The court found that neither party was predominantly successful on the main issues, as many determinations were deferred pending further disclosure, valuations, and the resolution of claims by third parties.

While the respondent obtained a temporary child support order, the amount was based on the applicant's reported income, which was subject to recalculation.

Given the divided success and the ongoing nature of the substantive issues, the court reserved the decision on costs to the trial judge or a judge presiding over a final determination of the outstanding matters.

The Applicant sought costs arising from her unsuccessful motion to strike the Respondent's Answer due to his failure to pay a previous costs order.

The Respondent, who was self-represented, also sought costs for successfully defending the motion.

The court found that both parties acted unreasonably in precipitating and conducting the motion, with the Applicant claiming excessive costs and the Respondent failing to properly substantiate his claim.

Consequently, the court ordered no costs payable for the motion, disentitling both parties to the costs they might otherwise have received.

This costs endorsement followed a successful motion by the defendants, Aplus General Contractors Corporation and The Regional Municipality of Peel, for an order requiring the plaintiff, 2041094 Ontario Inc. operating as TLN Masonry, to post security for costs.

The court found TLN's conduct in delaying the motion and opposing it without merit to be unreasonable, justifying an award of costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

However, the final award was limited to the actual fees charged by Aplus's counsel, which were less than their substantial indemnity rates.

The court awarded Aplus $15,459.65 in costs.

The applicant brought a motion to list two jointly owned properties for sale.

The respondent opposed, seeking a right of first refusal or a hold-back from proceeds.

The parties settled the substantive issues by consent order, which included a $60,000 hold-back but no right of first refusal.

The court was asked to determine costs based on written submissions.

The court found that success was divided, as neither party's offers were clearly more favorable than the consent order, and the evidence was insufficient to determine fault in pre-motion negotiations.

Consequently, no costs were awarded to either party.

Danny Duarte applied in Newfoundland and Labrador to vary a 2011 Ontario child support order, seeking a reduction based on decreased income.

The Newfoundland court issued a provisional order reducing his obligations.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, as the court of competent jurisdiction where the children reside, heard evidence from Sarah Duarte to determine whether to confirm, vary, or dismiss the provisional order.

The court found Danny Duarte failed to disclose income from a business and imputed a higher income for 2016, and also adjusted his contribution to section 7 expenses.

The provisional order was confirmed with variations, increasing Danny Duarte's child support and section 7 contributions for certain years.

This is a costs endorsement arising from an unsuccessful motion by Mr. Regisford to terminate spousal support.

Ms. Regisford opposed the motion, arguing it was premature, which the court agreed with, dismissing the motion.

Ms. Regisford, as the successful party, sought costs on a full recovery basis.

The court assessed costs considering the reasonableness of Mr. Regisford's conduct, the complexity of the issues, counsel's hourly rates, and time reasonably spent.

While Ms. Regisford's offer to settle was met, the court found Mr. Regisford's conduct, though not fully compliant with disclosure rules, did not amount to bad faith.

The court awarded Ms. Regisford costs on a substantial indemnity scale for the hearing and partial indemnity for preparation, totaling $5,791.25 inclusive of HST and disbursements, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.