D. Winnitoy

The applicant children's aid society sought costs of $10,094.86 following its successful defence of a motion brought by the respondent parents in a child protection proceeding.

The parents argued that no costs should be awarded against them to avoid deterring parents from defending against state intervention.

The court found this to be a rare and exceptional circumstance warranting a costs award against the parents, as they had brought an ill-conceived motion with no reasonable prospect of success following their own breach of a court order.

The court ordered the parents to pay costs of $2,500.

The parents in an active child protection proceeding brought a motion to vary a temporary supervision order to permit the mother and children to relocate to Alberta to reside with the father, or alternatively, to transfer the proceeding to an Alberta court.

The father had moved to Alberta for employment after being charged with serious sexual offences involving a former foster child, which had prompted the initial supervision order requiring him to be supervised around the children.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father's voluntary move did not constitute a compelling change in circumstances justifying relocation prior to trial, and that the parents failed to provide evidence that the Alberta child welfare agency had been served or consented to a transfer.

Following a five-day trial on a motion to change where the applicant successfully terminated spousal support, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The respondent, who was self-represented, advanced untenable claims for retroactive and indefinite support before abandoning them on the final day of trial.

The court found the respondent's litigation conduct unreasonable and awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $32,257.39, representing 70 percent of full recovery.

The defendants brought an unsuccessful summary judgment motion.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the defendants acted unreasonably in bringing the motion, as the case involved voluminous exhibits, credibility issues, and a 30-year history, making it clearly unsuitable for summary judgment.

The court awarded the plaintiffs costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $52,500.

The applicant mortgagee brought an interpleader application seeking directions regarding distribution of surplus proceeds from a power of sale after satisfaction of the mortgage and undisputed claims.

Competing claims were made by execution creditors, Legal Aid Ontario under a registered lien, and a party holding a lump sum child support order obtained five days after the closing date of the sale.

The court considered the priority scheme under the Mortgages Act and the Creditors’ Relief Act, as well as authorities addressing timing of encumbrances and support orders.

It held that priority under the Creditors’ Relief Act applies only where a support order exists at the relevant time and cannot retroactively displace encumbrancers whose interests existed at the date of sale.

Because the support order was made after closing, it ranked behind existing execution creditors and liens.