D.J. Taliano

Following a four‑day defamation trial in which the plaintiff obtained judgment of $126,218, the court addressed costs.

The plaintiff had delivered a Rule 49 offer to settle for $25,000 inclusive of costs, which was not accepted.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter pursuant to Rule 49.10.

After reviewing the bill of costs and considering proportionality and delays in prosecution, the court fixed costs at $50,000 plus HST and awarded disbursements of $4,941.15 inclusive of HST.

A craftsman sued the estate of a former business partner following a break‑in at his workshop, theft and destruction of moulds used to manufacture replica automobile bodies, and defamatory internet postings that redirected potential customers to the defendant’s website.

The court found the defendant liable for conversion, breach of contract, defamation, and bailment losses relating to vehicles and products stored on the defendant’s property.

The defamatory online statements falsely described the plaintiff as a scammer and remained publicly accessible for several years, significantly damaging his reputation and business.

The court awarded damages for the destroyed moulds, lost business opportunity, defamation, bailment losses, and punitive damages due to the malicious and high‑handed nature of the misconduct.

Total damages of $126,218 were awarded after mitigation.

Grandparents sought access and later custody of three grandchildren amid significant family conflict, mental health concerns affecting the mother, and competing custody claims by the parents.

Evidence showed the grandparents had long played a substantial caregiving role and provided stability, while the father of one child had disrupted the child’s relationships and misled professionals during a relocation attempt.

The court applied the best interests of the child analysis under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, emphasizing stability, sibling relationships, and the children’s emotional needs.

The court found that neither parent was presently capable of safely assuming primary care for the children.

Custody of all three children was granted to the grandparents with structured access for the parents.

The accused applied under ss. 462.34 and 462.341 of the Criminal Code for the release of $500,000 from seized currency subject to restraint and management orders to fund his legal defence in pending drug trafficking and murder proceedings.

The Crown and an intervening execution creditor opposed the application.

The court held that the applicant failed to establish that he had no other assets or means available and failed to demonstrate that no other person had a lawful ownership or possessory interest in the seized funds.

In particular, the intervenor held a registered restitution and civil judgment enforceable under the Execution Act, and another person potentially claimed an interest in the currency.

The statutory prerequisites for release of seized property were therefore not met.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking production of financial materials from a corporate defendant, including financial statements, income tax returns, and records related to its digital printing operations.

The action alleged that a former employee and shareholder breached non‑competition, non‑disclosure, and non‑solicitation obligations and assisted a competitor in establishing competing services, resulting in lost profits and unjust enrichment.

The court held that the requested documents were relevant to assessing both the plaintiff’s alleged losses and the defendant’s alleged gains.

The court rejected arguments that existing financial disclosures were sufficient and found that income tax returns were relevant to determining profits.

The court also held that a broader production period surrounding the non‑competition agreement was reasonable for assessing damages.

The defendant hotel management company brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of a personal injury action arising from the collapse of a hotel balcony at a resort in the Dominican Republic.

The plaintiffs alleged that the moving party held itself out as an operator of the resort and could be liable as an occupier.

Evidence suggested a close relationship between the moving party and another corporate entity responsible for resort operations, creating uncertainty regarding operational control and responsibility.

The court held that contradictory evidence regarding the entities’ roles and potential occupier’s liability made summary judgment inappropriate.

The motion was dismissed and the plaintiffs were awarded costs.

Following a family law trial concerning equalization of net family property, a prior costs award had granted the respondent substantial costs after he obtained a large equalization judgment.

After judgment, a serious error was discovered in the respondent’s net family property statement regarding the date-of-marriage value of his pension, which altered the equalization calculation and prompted an appeal.

The parties ultimately settled before the appeal hearing on the basis that the applicant owed a significantly reduced equalization payment.

The court reconsidered the earlier costs award and the costs of the appeal, finding that the respondent’s erroneous financial disclosure contributed to the litigation while the applicant achieved only partial success on appeal.

The court rescinded the earlier costs order and directed that each party bear their own costs.

Following a four‑day family law trial, the court determined costs.

The applicant had been successful on virtually every issue and had previously made a Rule 18 offer to settle that was as favourable or more favourable than the result obtained at trial.

The respondent’s conduct was found to be unreasonable, including unilateral termination of spousal and child support and maintaining untenable positions through trial.

Applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held the applicant was entitled to partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and full recovery thereafter.

The court reduced the requested amount slightly and ordered costs payable forthwith.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendants to comply with a prior consent order requiring production of financial and maintenance records relating to a hotel property that had been sold to the plaintiffs and leased back to the defendants.

The defendants resisted production on the basis of competitive sensitivity, the structure of their accounting records across multiple hotel properties, prior endorsements by another judge, and alleged non‑existence of certain documents.

The court held that competitive concerns do not override production obligations, that complexity in financial records is not a valid basis to refuse production, and that earlier endorsements did not vary the consent order.

The court further held that editing or expunging portions of financial statements was not permitted.

The defendants were ordered to produce the required materials within 30 days, failing which the plaintiffs could move to strike the statement of defence.

The applicant child protection agency brought a summary judgment motion seeking a Crown wardship order without access for the purpose of adoption.

The respondents each filed plans of care proposing that the child be placed in their respective care under supervision.

The court found overwhelming evidence of the mother’s long-standing inability to parent, including prior Crown wardship orders for other children and expert evidence regarding cognitive limitations.

The father’s proposed plan of care was also rejected due to significant mental health issues, criminal history, substance use, lack of cooperation with the agency, and failure to recognize the child’s developmental delays.

The court held that the respondents failed to raise any genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment making the child a Crown ward without access.

The offenders were sentenced for their roles in a conspiracy to import large quantities of cocaine using a Medivac plane, as well as related trafficking and proceeds of crime offences.

The court weighed the gravity of the offences, the offenders' respective roles, and the principles of totality and parity.

After applying a 1.5 to 1 credit for two years of pre-trial custody due to harsh conditions, the court sentenced the first offender to an effective term of 6 years and the second offender to an effective term of 2 years less a day.

Two accused were tried on numerous drug‑related offences including conspiracies to import cocaine, conspiracy to launder proceeds of crime, trafficking, and participation in a criminal organization.

The Crown relied heavily on intercepted communications detailing several alleged conspiracies, including the “Flowers”, “Medivac”, and “Wooden Shoes” schemes.

The court held that mere discussions of criminal plans do not establish conspiracy without proof of an agreement to commit the unlawful act.

One conspiracy to import cocaine through a medical evacuation aircraft was proven against both accused, while other alleged import conspiracies were not established.

The court also convicted one accused of conspiracy to launder proceeds of crime and several trafficking and possession‑for‑the‑purpose offences, while dismissing the criminal organization charge for lack of evidence of structured organization.

Following the withdrawal of a child protection application, the parents sought costs against the child protection agency for alleged financial losses, legal expenses, and other damages arising from the proceeding.

The court held that the applicants failed to provide any supporting documentation for their claimed expenses and that the court lacked jurisdiction on a costs motion to award damages for alleged harms.

The court further found that the agency had acted appropriately in investigating serious medical concerns raised by healthcare providers and school officials regarding the child’s health.

Once credible medical information alleviated those concerns, the agency withdrew the application.

In these circumstances, a costs award against the agency was not justified.

Following a family law equalization judgment requiring the applicant spouse to pay the respondent spouse $89,502.95, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The respondent sought a combination of partial indemnity and full recovery costs based on offers to settle made before trial.

The court held the offers did not comply with Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules and therefore could not trigger full recovery cost consequences, though the applicant’s failure to make any offer and rejection of the respondent’s offers were adverse factors.

After considering proportionality and the factors in Rules 18 and 24, the court fixed partial indemnity costs in favour of the respondent.

Following separation, the parties disputed retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support.

The respondent had voluntarily paid support for a period but later terminated all payments, forcing the applicant to pursue litigation.

The court declined to award retroactive support for the earliest post‑separation period but held that the respondent was responsible for unpaid support after he unilaterally stopped payments.

The court refused to impute additional income to the applicant, finding her efforts to operate a small business while caring for the children reasonable in the circumstances.

The prior consent support order was confirmed and made retroactive for the unpaid period, and new ongoing support levels were set based on the respondent’s income.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default summary judgment that had set aside two property transfers as fraudulent conveyances.

The court found that the defendant failed to satisfy the preconditions for setting aside a default judgment, as his explanation for the default was implausible, he delayed in seeking relief, and he failed to present a defence on the merits.

The court also rejected the argument that the plaintiff had no standing to attack the transfers because he was not a creditor at the time they were made, noting that the Fraudulent Conveyances Act protects both past and future victims of fraud.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicants sought exclusion of wiretap evidence under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the basis that Part VI authorizations were obtained using an unsigned and improperly commissioned affidavit, and allegedly lacked investigative necessity and reasonable grounds.

The court heard viva voce evidence from the affiant officer and the commissioner of oaths regarding irregularities in the affidavit commissioning process.

The court found the deficiencies were mechanical errors made in good faith and concluded the affidavit evidence had nevertheless been sworn and was trustworthy.

Applying the principles governing review of wiretap authorizations, the court held the record demonstrated investigative necessity and reasonable and probable grounds.

The motions to exclude the intercepted communications were dismissed.