4 total
Child support Relief granted
This is a costs endorsement following a trial where success was divided between the parties.
The respondent (mother) sought fixed costs of $22,600, while the applicant (father) sought his own costs.
The court found the mother to be the more successful party overall, particularly on the predominant issues of joint decision-making and parenting time schedule.
Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court fixed costs at $22,600 for the mother, with a portion attributed to child support for collection by the Family Responsibility Office.
The court ordered shared decision-making with split final authority and maintained an equal parenting time schedule.
This trial concerned decision-making responsibility and parenting time for the parties' child.
The father sought sole decision-making and a reduced parenting schedule for the mother, citing her past drug addiction, criminal charges, and communication failures.
The mother sought joint decision-making and continuation of the existing 2-2-3 alternating parenting schedule.
The court found significant mistrust and antagonism between the parties, impacting their ability to communicate.
The court ordered joint decision-making with final authority split: the mother for healthcare decisions and the father for education decisions, both after meaningful consultation.
The existing 2-2-3 alternating parenting schedule was maintained, rejecting the father's proposal for reduced parenting time for the mother.
The court also addressed child support arrears and ongoing support.
Real estate agent awarded $15,000 for sexual harassment by broker of record.
The applicant, a real estate sales agent, alleged that the personal respondent, the broker of record, subjected her to sexual harassment and sexual solicitation.
The Tribunal found that the personal respondent engaged in a course of vexatious comments about the applicant's appearance and subjected her to unwanted physical contact, including hugging and touching her shoulder.
The Tribunal concluded that this conduct amounted to sexual harassment under the Human Rights Code.
The respondents were ordered to pay $15,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to implement a workplace sexual harassment policy.
Defendant found liable for conversion of farm equipment subject to plaintiffs' general security agreement.
The plaintiffs, private lenders, advanced mortgage funds to the defendants for the purchase of a farm and equipment, secured by a general security agreement (GSA) on the equipment.
The defendant who sold the farm and equipment later removed and sold some of the equipment after the purchasers defaulted and the plaintiffs took possession of the farm.
The plaintiffs sued the seller for conversion and the purchaser for fraudulent misrepresentation.
The court found that property in the equipment passed to the purchaser on closing, giving the plaintiffs a valid GSA.
The seller was found liable for conversion and ordered to pay $35,533 in damages.
The claims against the purchaser and the seller's counterclaim and crossclaim were dismissed.
