Douglas

Following a successful Motion to Change regarding child support and income determination, the applicant mother sought costs.

The court found the mother was the successful party and that the father's unreasonable conduct regarding financial disclosure significantly increased the litigation costs.

The court awarded the mother costs of $204,913.81 on an elevated partial indemnity scale to reflect the father's unreasonable conduct.

In this high-conflict family law trial, the court determined equalization, child support, and spousal support following a 12-year marriage.

The respondent husband had a history of deceit and hiding assets, complicating the determination of his income and net family property.

The court ordered an equalization payment of over $1 million to the applicant wife, imputed income to both parties, and ordered retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support.

Due to the respondent's conduct, the court ordered a lump sum for ongoing spousal support and secured the equalization payment against his corporate assets.

The applicant Children and Family Services for York Region brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the two subject children were in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship with no access.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking the return of the children.

The children, who have complex needs including Autism Spectrum Disorder and suspected Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, were apprehended due to severe neglect and lack of medical care.

The parents had not exercised access in 14 months and failed to provide evidence raising a genuine issue for trial.

The court granted the applicant's motion, finding the children in need of protection and ordering Crown wardship with no access, and dismissed the father's motion.

Following a trial on motions to change child support where the self-represented applicant father was largely successful, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court considered the principles for awarding costs to self-represented litigants, including the value of time lost from work.

The applicant sought $6,714.63 based on his hourly employment rate.

After considering the mixed success on some issues, the dismissal of a motion to strike, and the reasonableness of the parties' conduct, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $3,000.

The applicant, having been successful on a motion for summary judgment, sought costs of $42,000 and alleged bad faith by the respondent.

The court declined to find bad faith but noted the respondent's unreasonable conduct, including failing to comply with disclosure orders, which unnecessarily expanded the record.

The court rejected the respondent's claim of impecuniosity, finding her lifestyle inconsistent with her stated income.

Costs were awarded to the applicant fixed at $25,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The parties sought a final determination of child and spousal support payable for 2014, 2015, and 2016 by way of a long motion.

The applicant father, a self-employed business owner, sought to have his income determined for support purposes, while the respondent mother argued he was unreasonably deducting personal expenses from his business income.

The court imputed income to the applicant by adding back portions of his claimed meals, telephone, vehicle, and home office expenses.

The court also imputed income to the respondent based on forgiven student loans.

Although the court's income findings revealed that the applicant had significantly overpaid both child and spousal support under prior temporary orders, the court declined to order retroactive adjustments, finding that requiring the respondent to repay the amounts would cause undue hardship.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking interim joint custody and an access schedule in accordance with a s. 30 assessment report by Dr. Butkowsky.

The applicant father opposed, arguing the report's recommendations should not be implemented before trial and that the 14-year-old son wished to reside primarily with him.

The court found no 'exceptional circumstances' requiring immediate implementation of the report's recommendations, but considered the assessor's observational evidence.

The court ordered that the son reside primarily with the father but have regular weekend access with the mother, overriding the son's stated preference based on his observed comfort with her.

The father was also ordered to pay child support, spousal support, and his proportionate share of the assessment report costs.

The Estate Trustees applied to pass their accounts for the Estate of Ingrid Loveman.

A beneficiary objected, alleging the Trustees breached their fiduciary duties by delaying the sale of the estate's primary asset (a house) to one of the Trustees, failing to account for rental income, and improperly charging the estate for litigation and carrying costs.

The court found that the purchasing Trustee preferred his own interests by delaying the house purchase, which caused unnecessary carrying costs and exposed the estate to a dependant's relief claim.

The court ordered the Trustees to personally bear the litigation costs and the carrying costs incurred after a reasonable closing date.

The Trustees were also ordered to account for uncollected rental income.

Trustee compensation was reduced to 1.75% due to these administrative failures.

The moving party, a defendant contractor, brought a motion under section 44 of the Construction Lien Act to reduce the amount of security posted to vacate a claim for lien registered by the responding party subcontractor.

The responding party's lien included a substantial delay claim.

The court reviewed the disputed items, including site supervisor labour, notional equipment rentals, bonding costs, and project management fees, to determine if they were properly lienable.

Finding that certain items like notional rentals, bonding costs, and work not done were not lienable or lacked a reasonable prospect of success, the court ordered the security reduced from $1,372,552.36 to $858,385.78.

The defendant was successful on a motion for particulars and sought costs of $13,511.02.

The plaintiff argued for no costs or $1,500, noting the excessive time spent by the defendant's counsel.

The court considered the defendant's offer to settle, the principle of proportionality, and the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court fixed costs payable to the defendant at $8,000 all-inclusive.

Following a motion for interim disbursements and other relief, the court ruled on outstanding disclosure and costs.

The respondent was ordered to produce various financial documents, including tax returns from 2010 to 2014, to assist in determining income for support purposes.

The applicant sought over $90,000 in costs for the motion.

Finding mixed success but noting the applicant was more successful on the primary issue of interim disbursements, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $15,000.

The moving parties brought a motion to remove the responding parties' counsel of record due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The moving parties argued that the law firm had previously acted for a jointly owned corporation and possessed confidential information relevant to the current shareholder dispute, specifically regarding a project called AllianceCare.

The court found that the law firm had a prior solicitor-client relationship with the jointly owned corporation and that the new retainer was sufficiently related to the past work, raising a rebuttable presumption of prejudice.

Because the responding parties refused to answer questions about AllianceCare during cross-examination, the court drew an adverse inference and found the presumption was not rebutted.

The motion was granted and the law firm was removed as counsel of record.

The parties separated after a 13-year cohabitation.

The central issue at trial was the determination of both parties' incomes for calculating child and spousal support.

The applicant sought to impute significant corporate pre-tax income to the respondent, while the respondent argued for a lower income based on legitimate business retention of earnings.

The court applied the Brophy test and declined to attribute corporate pre-tax income to the respondent, but imputed a higher income due to non-disclosure.

The court also imputed income to the applicant, finding she was intentionally under-employed after a reasonable period for retraining.

The court ordered ongoing child and spousal support, calculated retroactive support arrears after applying significant credits for voluntary payments, fixed the duration of spousal support at 11 years, and affirmed its jurisdiction under the Divorce Act to order life insurance as security for support.

The applicants, the deceased's common-law partner and their child, sought dependants' relief from the deceased's estate.

The central issue was whether a $1 million life insurance policy, which the deceased had been ordered to maintain with his estranged wife as the irrevocable beneficiary in prior family law proceedings, was available to all dependants under s. 72(1)(f) of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court held that the deceased still 'owned' the policy despite the court orders, and the estranged wife was not a 'creditor' under s. 72(7).

The policy proceeds were therefore deemed part of the estate for dependants' relief purposes.

The court also found the common-law partner met the definition of 'spouse' under the Act.

The applicant sought an order declaring a photocopy of the deceased's will valid and appointing herself as the sole estate trustee, removing the respondent siblings due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The respondents consented to the validity of the will but opposed their removal as trustees.

The court found that while the parties disagreed on the valuation and handling of certain corporate preference shares, this disagreement did not amount to a conflict of interest or sufficient hostility to override the testator's choice of trustees.

The application to remove the respondents was dismissed, and all three siblings were appointed as joint estate trustees.

The applicant bank, holding a mortgage on a landlocked property, applied for a declaration of an easement of necessity over an adjoining property previously severed by the original owner.

The respondents argued that the landlocked property had water access, which should defeat the claim for an easement of necessity.

The court found that the water access was impractical due to a steep slope, satisfying the modern test of practical necessity.

The court declared an easement of necessity over the adjoining land and directed a trial to determine its precise location.

The plaintiff was entirely successful in defeating the defendant's motion for security for costs.

The plaintiff sought costs of $21,200 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the defendant argued the parties should bear their own costs or costs should be in the cause.

The court found no basis for substantial indemnity costs and noted the plaintiff's time expenditure was somewhat excessive.

Costs were fixed at $11,000 inclusive of HST payable forthwith.

Following a trial where the respondent successfully obtained an order under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' child to Indiana, the respondent sought costs of $87,394.46.

The applicant opposed the quantum, citing excessive billing and her own impecuniosity.

The court found the respondent's bill of costs excessive and reduced the starting point.

While the court would have awarded $35,000 in partial indemnity costs, it further reduced the award to $12,500 to account for the applicant's precarious financial circumstances and the best interests of the child, noting that impecuniosity is a relevant factor but does not provide complete immunity from costs.

The defendant applied to admit statements he made to police upon arrest, in the cruiser, and at the detachment as res gestae.

The Crown conceded the arrest statements were res gestae but opposed the admission of the cruiser and detachment statements for their truth.

The court held that the cruiser and detachment statements were temporally separated from the arrest and there was sufficient time to fabricate a simple defence.

Therefore, they were not admitted as res gestae, but could be admitted as evidence of reaction and consistency under the rule in Edgar if the defendant testified.

Following a family law trial involving issues of custody, access, support, and equalization, both parties sought costs.

The court reviewed the parties' respective offers to settle and their conduct during the proceedings.

Finding that success was mixed and that both parties exhibited roughly equal degrees of unreasonableness, the court ordered that neither party was entitled to costs and each should bear their own.