Edward Charles Conway

The court determined who was entitled to vote at a membership meeting to elect a new Board of Directors for a not-for-profit incorporated church.

Following a schism and a disputed 2023 election, the parties agreed to hold a new election but disagreed on the membership list.

The court held that the 2023 election was invalid and that all members admitted prior to the 2023 election who had not resigned, including those with unpaid dues and the respondent priests, were entitled to vote, as the corporation's by-laws lacked a mechanism for automatic expulsion.

This decision addresses a motion for summary judgment brought by three defendants seeking indemnification from Luc Corbeil and the Corbeil Family Trust in relation to a loan and indemnity agreement.

The court found that the moving parties did not provide the personal guarantees required to trigger the indemnity, and that the Corbeil Family Trust was not a party to the relevant agreements.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the responding parties.

The parties brought competing applications regarding the proceeds of two life insurance policies owned by their late mother, and both sought an accounting for the time the other acted as attorney for property.

Following a decision where success was divided on the insurance policies and both parties' misappropriation claims were dismissed for lack of standing, both parties sought costs.

The court found that both parties contributed to the complexity and cost of the litigation by raising issues without legal basis.

Consequently, the court ordered that both parties bear their own costs.

The Plaintiffs, having succeeded on a motion for partial summary judgment, sought costs on a full or partial indemnity basis.

The Defendants failed to file responding materials to either the summary judgment motion or the costs submissions, and had previously failed to comply with court-imposed terms.

The Plaintiffs argued for full indemnity costs due to the Defendants' failure to concede a clear claim and alleged fraud.

The court, applying Rule 57.01, found insufficient evidence of fraud but sanctioned the Defendants for their litigation conduct, including forcing the motion and delaying the matter.

The court fixed the Plaintiffs' all-inclusive costs at $20,000, reducing the requested amount due to unrecoverable legal research and the perceived lack of justification for two counsel.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 11, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and fixed costs in favour of the responding parties in the amount of $2,500.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a summary judgment motion to enforce mortgage debts and seek possession of a commercial property after the defendants defaulted.

The defendants argued the motion should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to initially adduce the standard charge terms, engaged in negotiations that invalidated the Notice of Sale, and included amounts in the Notice of Sale that violated the Interest Act.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the standard charge terms were known to the parties, the negotiations did not constitute enforcement steps, and while the Notice of Sale contained accounting errors (including an improper 24% holdover interest rate), these defects did not invalidate the notice or preclude summary judgment.

The court granted summary judgment for the principal amounts, adjusted interest rates, and allowable fees, and issued an order for possession.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the respondent (N.) was entirely successful.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $99,500, reflecting a reduction from actual time incurred.

The appellant (F.) argued for each party to bear their own costs or for a reduced award, citing excessiveness and limited means.

The Court of Appeal found no special circumstances to warrant either full indemnity costs or no costs, ordering the appellant to pay the respondent $50,000 in all-inclusive costs, consistent with costs following the result and reasonable expectations.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction regarding a residential heat pump, the parties could not agree on costs.

The defendants sought costs between partial and substantial indemnity, citing the plaintiffs' conduct including a last-minute adjournment and lengthy cross-examinations.

The court found the conduct did not warrant elevated costs but considered it in fixing the quantum.

The court awarded the defendants costs of $17,773.21 on a partial indemnity basis, finding it to be a fair and reasonable amount.

The appellant mother travelled to Ontario from Dubai with her two children for a visit, but subsequently informed the respondent father that she would not return.

The father commenced proceedings in Ontario seeking a return order under s. 40 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The trial judge declined jurisdiction under ss. 22 and 23 of the Act, ordered the children returned to Dubai, and dismissed the mother's constitutional challenges to s. 40(3).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the mother's appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the risk of serious harm under s. 23, and upholding the constitutionality of the return order provision under both division of powers and the Charter.

The plaintiff, an unregistered real estate salesperson, sued the defendant brokerage for unpaid commissions.

The court found that the plaintiff had performed services in connection with trades in real estate, but his claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and wrongful dismissal were barred by section 9 of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, which prohibits actions for remuneration by unregistered persons.

Although the action was dismissed, the court ordered the successful defendants to pay the plaintiff's full indemnity costs due to their reprehensible conduct in hiring an unregistered person and needlessly prolonging the litigation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction to compel their neighbours to relocate a heat pump, alleging the noise and vibration constituted a nuisance and caused health issues.

The court applied the modified RJR-MacDonald test for mandatory injunctions.

The motion was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a strong prima facie case, largely due to insufficient medical and expert evidence linking the heat pump to their complaints, and failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

Following a trial where the applicant father successfully obtained an order for the return of the parties' children to Dubai, the court determined the issue of costs.

The father sought $486,000 on a partial and full recovery basis, relying on an offer to settle.

The respondent mother argued for no costs or a significantly reduced amount due to her limited financial means.

The court found the father was entitled to costs and had beaten his offer to settle, but fixed costs at $250,000 on a partial indemnity basis to ensure the award was proportionate and within the mother's reasonable expectations and ability to pay.

The father brought a motion for an interim parenting schedule within the mother's motion to change proceeding.

The father sought a 2-2-3 equal timesharing arrangement, which the parties had previously agreed to in negotiations before the mother changed her mind.

The father also sought an order requiring the mother to disclose international travel and comply with COVID-19 quarantine directives, after discovering she had travelled internationally multiple times without notice and failed to quarantine upon return.

The court granted the father's motion, ordering interim joint custody, a 2-2-3 timesharing schedule, and compliance with travel and quarantine directives, finding it in the child's best interests.

The mother's request for an order requiring the father to sign the child's passport was dismissed.

In a non-Hague international child retention case, the court held that Ontario lacked jurisdiction under ss. 22 and 23 of the Children’s Law Reform Act to determine custody and access respecting two Canadian children retained in Ontario after a temporary trip from Dubai.

The court found the children were habitually resident in Dubai, there was a pending Dubai proceeding, and the evidence did not establish serious harm if they were returned.

The court also rejected a constitutional challenge to s. 40(3) of the Act, holding that the return-order provision was intra vires Ontario and did not violate ss. 2(a), 6, 7, or 15 of the Charter.

A return order to Dubai was granted, together with ancillary enforcement and sealing-related relief.

In a family law trial concerning whether two young children should be returned to Dubai, the respondent mother brought an application to adduce expert opinion evidence from a psychotherapist.

The proposed evidence concerned the potential emotional and psychological impact on infants separated from their primary caregiver.

The applicant father opposed the admission of the evidence.

Following a voir dire, the court applied the test for expert evidence and found the proposed expert was properly qualified and capable of giving fair, objective, and non-partisan evidence.

The court granted the application, permitting the expert to testify strictly on the potential impact of separation from a primary caregiver, but prohibited her from opining on the specific attachment of the children to either parent.

The applicant father sought to re-open an already decided appeal based on new text message evidence from the respondent mother, which he argued undermined her previous narrative regarding their child's residency in Dubai.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the application, reiterating that re-opening an appeal is a rare event reserved for cases of "very serious injustice." The court found the new evidence irrelevant to its original decision, which focused on the need to respect a U.K. Consent Custody Order and for the father to pursue the matter in the U.K. first, rather than making credibility findings.

Costs were awarded against the father.

The father brought an application under s. 40 of the Children's Law Reform Act (CLRA) seeking the return of their child to Dubai, claiming wrongful retention in Ontario.

The application judge ordered the child's return to Dubai, erroneously applying the Hague Convention framework despite the UAE not being a signatory.

The Court of Appeal found this was an error, as s. 40 CLRA is distinct from the Hague Convention, particularly regarding the concept of "habitual residence" and the court's broad discretionary powers.

The appeal was allowed, the lower order set aside, and the father's application stayed on condition he commence proceedings in the UK, where a prior consent custody order existed.

The applicant sought costs for two motions: a recusal motion brought by the respondent and a motion to strike brought by the applicant.

The applicant was successful on both motions.

The court rejected the applicant's claim for full indemnity costs, noting that the Family Law Rules do not provide for a general approach of close to full recovery.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs, fixing the amount at $40,930.53 based on reasonableness and proportionality.

The Applicant's motion was heard on February 26, 2019, where he withdrew several claims including supervised access, sale of the matrimonial home, and spousal support.

The motion proceeded on three issues: an advance on an equalization payment, an amendment to a restraining order, and retrieval of personal belongings.

The Respondent was largely successful on the equalization payment, success was divided on the restraining order, and the Applicant was technically successful on retrieving belongings (though unopposed).

The court found the Respondent to be the more successful party on the motion and awarded costs of $17,500, inclusive of HST, to the Respondent.

This decision considered the Applicant's unreasonable litigation conduct, including late withdrawal of claims and obtaining a premature return date for the motion, which increased costs and delayed access to justice.

Following a motion for interim spousal support where the applicant was successful, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The court noted that the respondent unnecessarily complicated the proceedings by conducting a forensic audit of the applicant's finances, which drove up costs.

Although the respondent had made offers to settle, they included conditions the applicant could not accept.

The court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $85,000.