Michelle Hayes

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to various treatment plans for psychological services, occupational therapy, assistive devices, and a chronic pain assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's impairments were pre-existing and not caused or exacerbated by the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet the "but for" test for causation.

The Tribunal relied on extensive pre-accident medical records and independent medical examinations demonstrating the applicant had a significant history of chronic pain, substance abuse, and psychological impairments that were unaffected by the accident.

Claims for an award for unreasonable delay and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final order that granted custody of the children to the respondent mother, seeking sole custody and primary residence.

The father alleged that the mother's parenting was deficient and that the children wished to live with him.

The court found no material change in circumstances, noting that the ongoing high conflict was primarily driven by the father's abusive and denigrating conduct towards the mother.

The court held that a change in custody was not in the children's best interests and dismissed the motion, leaving the original custody and access order in place.

The appellant father appealed a custody and access order from the Superior Court of Justice concerning his three sons.

The motions judge granted summary judgment in favour of the respondent mother, awarding her sole custody of two of the three children and ordering that the father's access and communication with the children be at the children's discretion.

The father challenged the appropriateness of summary judgment, the weight given to the custody assessment, the best interests analysis, and alleged Charter violations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's decision to proceed by summary judgment, his consideration of the evidence, his analysis of the children's best interests, and his costs award.

The appellant father appealed a final custody and access order to the Divisional Court.

The panel raised the issue of jurisdiction, noting that the order was made in a proceeding where both parties sought a divorce.

Under section 27 of the Children's Law Reform Act, claims for custody and access are stayed in favour of the Divorce Act when a divorce is claimed.

Because the order was made under the Divorce Act, the appeal route lies to the Court of Appeal under section 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, not the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court found the father had a meritorious appeal regarding the termination of his access and transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant father brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole custody of his three children and an order forcing them into a reunification program (Family Bridges) with a 90-day no-contact period with the respondent mother.

The mother brought a cross-motion for summary judgment seeking sole custody and access at the children's discretion.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, concluding that the children's refusal to see their father was a justified estrangement resulting from his past violence, rather than parental alienation by the mother.

The court respected the strong and consistent views and preferences of the children, dismissed the father's motion, and granted the mother's motion for sole custody with access at the children's discretion.

Following a high-conflict custody trial where the respondent mother was found to have alienated the children, the applicant father sought costs of over $785,000.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a substantial indemnity basis for the main action and full recovery for specific motions, finding the respondent engaged in unreasonable and bad faith conduct.

The court also apportioned the costs of the section 30 assessment and reintegration therapy, ordering the respondent to pay the majority of these expenses due to her alienating behaviour.

Total costs of $625,337.40 were awarded to the applicant.

Following a 36-day high-conflict family law trial where the applicant father was entirely successful on custody and child support, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought nearly $265,000 in costs, having spent $300,000 on legal fees, while the respondent mother spent over $200,000.

The court found the applicant's offers to settle triggered the presumption of full recovery under Rule 18(14) for certain issues, and noted the respondent's unreasonable behaviour significantly lengthened the trial.

Balancing proportionality, affordability, and the respondent's conduct, the court ordered the respondent to pay $192,000 in costs.

Following settlement of all parenting issues during a contested custody trial, the court determined costs.

The applicant mother had offered settlement terms largely consistent with the ultimate resolution, including sole decision‑making authority, while the respondent father pursued joint custody despite significant conflict and concerns identified in a s. 30 assessment.

The court found the applicant was more successful overall and criticized aspects of the respondent’s litigation conduct, including unilateral and intimidating behaviour and trial strategies that prolonged proceedings.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering proportionality and ability to pay, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the applicant.