D.J. Gordon

The mother brought a motion to set aside a temporary order granted in her absence, which had directed police enforcement of parenting time, prohibited her husband from attending exchanges, and requested an Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation.

The mother argued she received inadequate notice of the hearing.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the mother had adequate notice but failed to monitor her email, provided no explanation for a one-year delay in pursuing the motion, and presented no arguable defence on the merits to the original order.

The parties separated in 2018 and engaged in a high-conflict dispute over parenting their six-year-old child.

The mother repeatedly made unilateral decisions, refused to participate in a Children's Lawyer investigation, and relocated with the child to Etobicoke shortly before trial in breach of a prior court order.

The court found the mother's conduct demonstrated a complete disregard for the child's right to a relationship with the father.

The father was awarded sole decision-making responsibility, except for religion, and the mother was ordered to return the child to the Region of Waterloo immediately.

An equal shared parenting schedule was ordered to commence once the mother returns to the region.

The plaintiff sought an assessment of damages after the defendant was noted in default for failing to deliver a statement of defence.

The plaintiff sustained serious physical and psychological injuries, including fractured ribs and a punctured lung, when she was thrown from a Jet Ski negligently operated by the defendant.

The court assessed non-pecuniary damages, pecuniary damages for personal care and future medical expenses, and a subrogated claim, awarding a total of $129,939.19 plus costs.

The parties sought costs following a family law trial regarding parenting and child support issues.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of nearly $170,000, while the respondent sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $2,500.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle and found that there was mixed success at trial.

The court also noted that both parties had conducted the litigation unreasonably, allowing personal conflict to dominate and incurring disproportionate legal expenses for relatively straightforward issues.

Consequently, the court declined to award costs to either party, ordering each to bear their own costs.

Following a family law trial regarding child support, vehicle ownership, and a restraining order, the court addressed costs.

The court found that the trial was unnecessarily long and financially disastrous for both parties, given their modest financial circumstances and the proximity of their settlement offers.

Success on the child support issue was divided, but the applicant was entirely successful in dismissing the respondent's claims regarding the vehicle and restraining order.

The court awarded the applicant $25,000 in costs for those specific issues.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment regarding a syndicated loan in a failed condominium project, the plaintiffs sought costs.

The court found that the defendants engaged in a litigation strategy of 'delay, deny and obstruct', including failing to disclose documents, refusing to answer questions, and delaying payment of a prior costs award.

Consequently, the court awarded the plaintiffs costs on a substantial indemnity scale, fixing the quantum at $61,000.18.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment regarding an overpayment for artwork, the plaintiffs sought full indemnity costs.

The court found the defendant's conduct throughout the litigation to be reprehensible, obstructive, and untruthful, including failing to provide documentary disclosure and taking unnecessary steps to delay the proceedings.

The court awarded the plaintiffs full indemnity costs in the amount of $33,903.00.

The parties, who were never married, resolved their parenting issues prior to trial, agreeing to shared parenting.

The remaining issues at trial were child support, ownership of a vehicle, and the respondent's request for a restraining order.

The court dismissed the vehicle claim for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed the request for a restraining order due to insufficient evidence of ongoing harassment or fear for safety.

On child support, the court found the applicant intentionally underemployed in his seasonal concrete business and imputed his income at $55,000.

Set-off child support was ordered based on the parties' respective incomes.

During final submissions in a family law trial, the respondent brought a motion to amend her answer to seek a higher imputed income for child support based on the applicant's undisclosed commission income.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent had substantial financial information months prior to trial but failed to seek an amendment in a timely manner.

Granting the amendment at this late stage would cause obvious disadvantage to the applicant that could not be compensated by costs or an adjournment.

The defendants brought a motion on the eve of trial seeking an adjournment, leave to serve a late expert report, and leave to amend their Statement of Defence to add a counterclaim.

The underlying action involved allegations of environmental contamination flowing from the defendants' property to the plaintiff's property.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the individual defendant, who had been self-represented for much of the litigation, had known about the issues for years but failed to act until the eve of trial.

The court held that granting the relief would cause significant delay and non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $303,030.24 following a 49-day family law trial, while the respondent argued for no costs.

The court noted the high-conflict nature of the litigation, the unconscionable seven-year delay, and the unreasonable conduct of both self-represented parties.

Although the applicant had greater success at trial, her costs claim included unrecoverable items such as mediation fees and business losses.

The court calculated initial costs at $113,300 but reduced the award to $50,000 due to the manner in which the litigation was conducted.

In a high-conflict family law trial following an eight-year litigation history, the court determined parenting, support, and property issues for common-law spouses.

The mother, a veterinarian, was awarded sole decision-making and primary residence of the 10-year-old twins due to the parties' complete inability to communicate.

The court admitted the children's counselling records into evidence, finding the children had waived privilege and the statements met the principled exception to hearsay.

Income was imputed to both parties for child support purposes, and the father's spousal support claim was dismissed.

On property issues, the court applied unjust enrichment principles, awarding the father 30% of the value of the mother's veterinary practice and dividing the equity in the family residence based on its date-of-trial value.

The respondent father sought costs following his partially successful motion to regularize access to his 9-year-old child.

The applicant mother had opposed the motion, arguing that increased parenting time should be left to the child's request, a position the court found unreasonable.

Both parties sought costs.

The court rejected the mother's request and awarded the father $1,000 in costs, noting his partial success and the high-conflict history of the case.

Following a successful motion for access to a child, the respondent sought costs of $11,723.95 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant suggested a range of $4,000 to $5,500.

The court found the respondent's claimed hours to be unreasonable and awarded costs of $6,780.00 inclusive of HST on a substantial indemnity basis.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court determined the costs of the motion.

The plaintiffs sought $21,000, while the defendants proposed $4,500.

The court found that costs should be payable forthwith rather than deferred to the trial judge.

Applying principles of proportionality under the simplified procedure and discounting time spent on trial preparation, the court awarded the plaintiffs $7,500 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent father brought a motion for access to his child after the applicant mother unilaterally terminated his regular access in January 2020, alleging violence and abuse.

The court found the mother's allegations lacked independent evidentiary support and that her termination of access was improper and vindictive.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted a temporary order for graduated access, beginning with alternate Sundays and progressing to alternate weekends, along with weekly telephone access.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to prohibit the respondent mother from relocating with their two-year-old child from Simcoe to Norwich prior to a case conference.

The parties had separated and were disputing parenting time, with the father seeking equal shared parenting.

The court found the proposed move premature and lacking urgency, noting that the status quo and competing custody claims needed to be determined on a complete evidentiary record.

The motion was granted, and the mother was prohibited from moving the child pending further order.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

The trial judge had excluded the breathalyzer readings under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding a breach of the respondent's s. 10(b) right to counsel, as police failed to provide him with a lawyer's directory when he could not reach his counsel of choice.

The Superior Court of Justice found no error in the trial judge's application of the law or the Grant framework and dismissed the appeal.

The parties separated in 2014 and have a 6-year-old child.

The child has been subjected to multiple parenting regimes, including periods where each parent unilaterally withheld the child from the other.

The mother previously made an unfounded sexual abuse allegation against the father.

The father sought sole custody, while the mother sought joint custody with primary residence.

The court found both parents fit but noted significant communication issues.

The court awarded joint custody, with primary residence to the father and final decision-making authority to the father if the parties cannot agree.

The court denied both parties' claims for retroactive and prospective child support, noting the father's modest income and the mother's status as a student.

Following a 30-day trial regarding custody, access, and support, the applicant father sought costs capped at $30,000 pursuant to a partial settlement agreement.

The court found the costs request premature because the remaining outstanding issues, specifically the mother's access review pending a psychiatric assessment, had not been fully determined.

The determination of costs liability was deferred until the completion of the access review.