Eni Hanxhari

This was a family costs endorsement following cross-motions about temporary decision-making responsibility for a child's vaccinations.

The court held that the successful party's offer to settle did not trigger the enhanced costs consequences under subrule 24 (12) because the order obtained was not as good as or better than the offer.

Applying the presumption in favour of the successful party, while recognizing divided success on some subsidiary issues, the court found the father was successful overall on the dominant vaccination issue.

After considering reasonableness, proportionality, counsel rates, time spent, and the responding party's ability to pay, the court fixed costs at $6,000 inclusive, payable by instalments.

Father sought temporary sole decision-making responsibility over child vaccination and an order prohibiting the mother from discussing vaccines with the child.

Mother opposed vaccination, seeking sole or joint decision-making authority, arguing the child was healthy and that the father had previously agreed to delay vaccination.

Applying J.N. v. C.G., 2023 ONCA 77, the court held the onus fell on the mother to rebut the presumptive safety and efficacy of Health Canada-approved vaccines.

The mother failed to adduce credible evidence displacing public health recommendations; her exhibits were incomplete, dated, or irrelevant.

The court granted the father temporary sole decision-making responsibility over vaccination, dispensed with the mother's consent, but declined to restrict the mother's speech regarding vaccines, finding the request too intrusive on a single evidentiary lapse.

The court considered whether a marriage should be annulled for non-consummation.

The applicant husband claimed the marriage was never consummated and sought an annulment; the respondent wife claimed consummation occurred and sought a divorce.

After reviewing the evidence, including the parties' testimony and medical records, the court found that the marriage was not consummated within the meaning of the law and that both parties were incapable of consummating it, not merely unwilling.

The court granted a declaration of nullity (annulment) and declined to find any other ground for annulment, such as immigration fraud or lack of consent.

The plaintiff, Continental Homes Inc., sought costs following a trial where it was awarded $23,279.50 in lien and breach of contract damages, and successfully defeated the defendants' $63,516.77 set-off and counterclaim.

The court considered the plaintiff's limited success (14% of claimed damages), the plaintiff's reasonable offers to settle, and the conduct of both parties, including the plaintiff's significant delay in filing costs outlines and the defendants' counsel's violation of page limits.

The court awarded the plaintiff $20,000 in partial indemnity costs and clarified the correct prejudgment interest rate and commencement date for the damages awarded.

This case involved a construction contract dispute where the plaintiff, Continental Homes Inc., sued the defendants, 2646576 Ontario Inc. (owner) and 8682470 Canada Inc. o/a Chang Xin Construction (general contractor), for breach of contract and a claim for lien.

The defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract.

The court found that an enforceable subcontract existed between Continental and Chang.

The court determined that Chang fundamentally breached the subcontract by failing to pay the required deposit and wrongfully terminating the contract.

The defendants' alleged delays by Continental were found to be the fault of the defendants due to delays in obtaining locates and surveys.

The court dismissed the defendants' counterclaim and awarded Continental $23,279.50 in damages for breach of contract and confirmed its lien for the same amount, to be paid from the cash security.

Continental's claim for lost profit and business opportunities was denied due to lack of evidence.