Eric Letts

The applicant mother sought costs following a six-day trial where she was largely successful in retaining primary residence and decision-making authority over children's health and education, while the respondent father's claims for equal parenting time and joint decision-making were unsuccessful.

The father also abandoned a constitutional challenge to child support guidelines during closing arguments.

The court found the father's litigation conduct unreasonable, including bringing motions without material change, making accusatory statements, and pursuing a constitutional challenge without evidence.

Despite the father's arguments of inability to pay, the court awarded the mother costs totaling $57,338.05, comprising partial, substantial, and full indemnity costs for different periods and issues, with a minor reduction for junior counsel rates.

This decision addresses the costs of a contempt motion where the respondent was found not in contempt regarding the designation of an irrevocable trustee for child support life insurance.

The respondent, as the successful party, sought full recovery costs.

The court considered the respondent's unreasonable delay in providing crucial information from the insurer and the applicant's persistence with the motion despite receiving that information.

Ultimately, the court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs, reducing the requested amount due to his delay and the excessive nature of his legal fees, while also acknowledging the applicant's continued pursuit of the motion.

The applicant brought a motion for a finding of contempt against the respondent for failing to irrevocably designate her as the beneficiary of a life insurance policy in trust for their children, as required by a previous court order.

The court found that the respondent was not in contempt, as the order explicitly made the designation conditional on whether it was allowed by the insurer, and the insurer did not permit an irrevocable trustee designation.

The motion was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses costs following a summary judgment motion where the respondent was largely successful in having the applicant's application dismissed and securing child support.

The court considered the parties' conduct, the applicant's unreasonable position, his failure to provide disclosure, and an informal offer to settle that was less favourable than the outcome.

While the applicant's conduct was not deemed bad faith, it was found unreasonable.

The respondent's costs were reduced due to an adjournment necessitated by her failure to provide income proof.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant brought a motion to change child support retroactively, alleging the respondent misrepresented his income and falsified financial documents.

The court found the respondent lacked credibility due to a pattern of concealing income and falsifying records.

While most of the respondent's claimed business expenses (mileage allowances, car payments, insurance, cell, internet, gas heating, bookkeeping) were rejected, the court allowed a deduction of one-third of claimed gas and repair expenses.

The respondent's 2014 gross income was also adjusted upwards based on new evidence.

A class member challenged a court-approved Distribution Protocol in a class action settlement, alleging it contravened the Ontario Human Rights Code by requiring family members to pool their claims for minimum compensation, thereby discriminating on the basis of family and marital status.

The court held that the Human Rights Code does not apply to court orders or distribution schemes under the Class Proceedings Act.

Furthermore, even if the Code applied, the pooling requirement did not constitute discrimination, as it was a justified mechanism to encourage claims while preventing windfall overcompensation.

In a class action regarding price-fixing of DRAM devices, a settlement and distribution protocol were approved by the courts.

A class member subsequently alleged that the distribution protocol contravened the Ontario Human Rights Code by requiring family members residing in the same household to pool their claims, which allegedly discriminated based on family and marital status.

The court held a motion for directions to determine the issue.

The court ruled that the Human Rights Code does not apply to court orders, including a court-approved distribution protocol, as they are not 'services' under the Code.

Furthermore, even if the Code applied, the pooling requirement did not constitute prima facie discrimination, and any disadvantage was justified to prevent windfall compensation and encourage claims.