D.J. Taliano

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The court rescinded the earlier costs order and directed that each party bear their own costs.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal upholding the denial of disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in its findings regarding his medication dosage for depression and misapplied the law by effectively requiring his impairment to be continuous rather than recurrent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's factual conclusions were supported by the appellant's own testimony and that it correctly applied the statutory definition of disability.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board evicting him on the basis that the landlords required the basement unit for their daughter's use.

The tenant argued the Board erred in law by accepting an affidavit from the landlord on behalf of the 15-year-old daughter, failing to determine good faith, and ignoring the tenant's disabilities and the landlords' alleged breaches.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the affidavit acceptable given the daughter's age and concluding the Board had reasonably considered all other matters.

The corporate defendant appealed an order striking its statement of defence for failing to comply with an interlocutory order requiring it to retain new counsel or obtain leave to be represented by a non-lawyer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge made no error in concluding the defendant's recalcitrance and failure to comply with the clear terms of the order warranted the severe penalty of striking its pleadings.

The appellants appealed an order requiring the individual appellant to pay the respondent $22,253.23 pursuant to a consent judgment based on minutes of settlement.

The appellants argued the motion judge failed to consider the factual matrix surrounding the settlement and misapplied section 30 of the OBCA.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that section 30 was not contravened because the corporate defendant was not ordered to pay for the shares, and that the clear terms of the consent judgment did not require reference to the factual matrix.

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 plaintiff sought leave to appeal a trial judge's order denying him costs after he was awarded $12,000 in a wrongful dismissal action.

The trial judge denied costs under Rule 57.05(1) because the award fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, which had increased to $25,000 during the litigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's exercise of discretion, noting the plaintiff's continuing obligation to assess the appropriate forum and the undue length of the trial caused by the plaintiff's unsuccessful pursuit of punitive damages.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a costs order denying him costs after he was awarded $12,000 in a wrongful dismissal trial.

The trial judge had denied costs under Rule 57.05(1) because the recovery was within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, which had increased to $25,000 after the action was commenced.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's exercise of discretion, noting the moving party's continuing obligation to assess the appropriate forum and the undue length of the trial caused by the unsuccessful pursuit of punitive damages.

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.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal, the successful respondents sought costs of $31,804.58.

The appellants submitted that costs should be fixed at $20,000.

The Divisional Court agreed with the appellants, fixing costs at $20,000 inclusive, noting that this amount was fair, reasonable, and proportionate to the amount at issue.

The appellant solicitor appealed an order requiring him to personally pay $10,000 in costs under Rule 57.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motions judge had awarded costs against the solicitor largely due to allegations of unprofessional conduct and conducting the litigation in an unreasonable manner.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge failed to apply the 'extreme caution' principle and did not establish how the solicitor's conduct caused costs to be incurred unnecessarily.

The court emphasized that Rule 57.07 is compensatory, not punitive, and should not be used to sanction professional misconduct that does not result in wasted costs.

The appellants appealed a judgment that awarded the respondents a declaration of trespass, general damages, punitive damages, and costs following a property line dispute over a fence.

The application judge had decided the matter under Rule 14.05(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure despite conflicting affidavit evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, holding that Rule 14.05(3) is not available for the resolution of general and punitive damage claims where material facts are in dispute.

The court set aside the damages and costs awards and directed a trial of an issue regarding the respondents' entitlement to damages.