David John Cameletti

The defendants, Kyrollos Maseh and Marina Tanious, brought a motion seeking to discharge the plaintiff's lien and dismiss the action due to the plaintiff's non-compliance with a prior order regarding undertakings and costs.

Prior to the hearing, the plaintiff complied with some aspects, and the parties resolved the substantive motion, leaving only costs to be determined.

The court, applying principles from Muskala v. Sitarski, declined to award the moving defendants their claimed costs of the motion, finding them excessive and largely attributable to costs of the action rather than the motion itself.

The court noted the plaintiff's breach necessitated the motion but also found the defendants' approach to reviewing disorganized answers contributed to their claimed costs.

The final order was no costs for the motion, without prejudice to the defendants claiming those costs as costs of the action.

The father (D.R.) and paternal grandmother (C.L.) appealed a trial judge's decision regarding access to the children (K.R., S.R., C.R.) who were in the extended care of Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington Country (F&CS).

The trial judge had barred access for the father to two daughters, granted limited access to the son, and granted limited supervised access to the grandmother, making the children the access holders.

The appellants sought more liberal access, reunification therapy, and a stay of adoption proceedings.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the children remained in need of protection due to emotional harm risks, primarily from the paternal family's denial of sexual abuse allegations and lack of support for the children's trauma stories.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or legal principles, including the refusal to order reunification therapy without the children's consent and a detailed therapeutic plan.

This is a costs endorsement following motions to change child support and custody arrangements between former partners.

The applicant sought retroactive child support adjustment back to 2003 and prospective support, while the respondent sought termination of his child support obligation and support from the applicant.

The court found the respondent was the more successful party, having achieved termination of his support obligation effective March 1, 2017, and obtaining support from the applicant.

The applicant was partially successful in obtaining a three-year retroactive adjustment (2014-2017) and some section 7 expense contributions, but her 15-year retroactive claim was rejected.

The court awarded costs to the respondent.

Two motions to change were brought regarding child support and section 7 expenses for an adult child (age 18) who had relocated from the mother's residence to the father's residence.

The father sought termination of his child support obligation and retroactive child support from the mother.

The mother sought ongoing child support, retroactive adjustment of child support based on undisclosed income increases, and retroactive section 7 expenses.

The court found the child was no longer entitled to ongoing support as she was not pursuing post-secondary education.

The court ordered retroactive child support adjustment limited to 2014-2017 based on the three-year principle, awarded partial section 7 expenses (child care and medical/orthodontic costs), and dismissed claims for private school fees and extracurricular activities.

Net arrears were fixed at $7,686.50 payable by the father to the mother.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for the forfeiture of a $50,000 deposit, the plaintiff, Brian Coghlan, sought $86,000 in costs.

The defendants, Unique Real Estate Holdings Inc. and Brent Lipke, opposed the quantum, proposing a range of $10,000 to $14,000.

The court, applying Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, rejected the plaintiff's claim for substantial indemnity costs under Rule 49.10(1) as the offer to settle was not more favourable than the judgment.

The court also declined to hold the individual defendant, Brent Lipke, personally liable for costs.

Ultimately, the court awarded Brian Coghlan partial indemnity costs of $17,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, to be paid by Unique Real Estate Holdings Inc., finding this amount to be fair and reasonable given the case's complexity and proportionality principles.

The applicant child protection agency moved to end the intervener status of the maternal grandparents in a child protection proceeding.

The grandparents had been granted limited intervener rights under section 39(3) of the Child and Family Services Act.

However, they subsequently breached the terms of a court order by including confidential information from the child protection file in a separate custody application under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The agency sought to revoke their intervener status as a sanction for this breach.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the breach was serious, the circumstances—including the counsel's inadvertence, immediate withdrawal of the application, and the limited harm caused—did not warrant removal of intervener status.

A case conference addressed two related proceedings: a family law claim for spousal support and an estates dispute regarding the validity of wills and powers of attorney for an incapable individual.

The court ordered extensive financial disclosure from multiple parties who had managed or received funds belonging to the incapable individual, including bank statements, property disposition records, and expense breakdowns.

The court rejected the spouse’s position that she could retain and manage the incapable individual’s assets without disclosure, finding that her claim for spousal support created an adverse interest requiring transparency.

The court also ordered hospital records to be produced and directed that no interlocutory steps occur in the estates proceeding until a pre‑trial conference.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change child support orders.

The respondent father sought to terminate his support obligation to his daughter and rescind accumulated arrears.

The applicant mother sought to maintain the arrears.

The court terminated support as of February 1, 2008 and rescinded all arrears, making the father the substantially successful party.

The court awarded costs of $7,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes, considering the father's success, the complexity of disclosure issues, the mother's delay and non-compliance with disclosure orders, and the mother's financial circumstances.