Dr. Ross

This decision concerns the allocation of costs following the settlement of two related personal injury actions arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court addresses disputes over the reasonableness and recoverability of various disbursements and legal fees, including expert reports, travel, and office expenses.

The court reduces certain disbursements and fees, providing detailed reasons for each adjustment, and clarifies the principles for assessing costs in complex personal injury litigation.

This decision addresses two Applications for Openness brought by the Office of the Children's Lawyer on behalf of two Metis children placed for adoption with their younger siblings.

The court considered the best interests of the children, the meaningfulness and benefit of ongoing contact with birth parents, and the importance of cultural connection under both the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) and the Federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children.

The court balanced the children's strong desire for contact and cultural connection against the risks posed by the birth parents' aggressive and disruptive behavior, particularly the father's history of threats and criminal charges.

The final openness order permits indirect contact through annual updates and messages, with strict conditions to protect the adoptive placement's stability and safety.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

Liability was admitted, and a jury awarded damages for pain and suffering, past income loss, and future income loss.

The court then heard the defendant's threshold motion, which argued the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory threshold for non-pecuniary loss.

The court denied the defendant's motion, finding that the plaintiff had sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important mental or psychological function, thus allowing her claim for non-pecuniary damages to proceed.

Kourtny Lynn Audette pleaded guilty to manslaughter for the fatal stabbing of Nicholas Laprise, a client for sex-for-hire.

The court considered the circumstances of the offence, including the use of a hunting knife on a vulnerable, unarmed victim, and the offender's lack of prior record, history of abuse, mental health issues (PTSD, depression, anxiety, substance abuse), and intoxication at the time of the incident.

The court rejected further claims of provocation or self-defence beyond what justified the reduction from murder to manslaughter.

The judge imposed a sentence of eight and a half years, with credit for pre-sentence custody, along with a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The defendant requested an adjournment of a fixed trial date at a case conference, citing outstanding production issues including pre-accident medical notes and employment records.

The plaintiffs opposed the adjournment.

The court dismissed the request, noting that discoveries occurred over a year prior and the defendant had ample time to bring production motions.

The court maintained the fixed trial date, emphasizing that such dates are only adjourned in extenuating circumstances, which were not present.

The applicant father sought to vary a 2016 joint custody and shared parenting order.

The respondent mother alleged assault by the father against their child, which the court found lacked credibility.

Relying on a 2015 Parenting Capacity Assessment, the court determined the mother was the primary contributor to parental conflict.

The court ordered a parallel parenting regime with specific decision-making allocations, alternating weekly residence for the child, and structured holidays.

Communication between parents was limited to Our Family Wizard.

The father was awarded costs.

The offender pleaded guilty to arson with disregard for human life after setting fire to a neighbour's house with his brother.

The fire caused $150,000 in property damage and destroyed the home.

The court found the offender's moral blameworthiness was significantly reduced due to his severe cognitive limitations, functioning at the 1st percentile.

Balancing the gravity of the offence with the offender's reduced culpability, the court imposed a two-year conditional sentence followed by three years of probation.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident claim, the plaintiffs were awarded $5,000, a fraction of the $1.5 million claimed.

The defendant had made a Rule 49 offer of $350,000 prior to trial.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 and the impact of the Rule 49 offer.

The court fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $100,000 and the defendant's costs at $200,000, ordering the plaintiffs to pay the net costs of $100,000 to the defendant, less the amount of their judgment.

The appellant father appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing his motion to change custody of a 12-year-old child.

The original custody order was made on consent to the mother in 2007.

The father argued that a psychological report ordered under the Children's Law Reform Act established a material change in circumstances affecting the child.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that while the report documented parental conflict and the mother's anger negatively impacting the child, the continuation of parental conflict does not constitute a material change in circumstances.

The court noted that the mother had taken reasonable steps to address the identified issues, including enrolling in parenting programs and increasing the father's time with the child.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion for summary judgment brought by the respondent mother to dismiss the applicant father's Motion to Change claims regarding custody and access.

The mother was successful in the summary judgment motion, which dismissed the father's claims on the basis that he failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances—a prerequisite for varying custody or access orders.

The court awarded costs to the successful party (the mother) in the amount of $4,000 plus GST, payable within sixty days.

A motion to change regarding the education of a 12-year-old child with Autism Spectrum Disorder 2 (ASD2) and severe intellectual disability.

The mother sought to continue home schooling the child, while the father sought an order requiring the child to attend a specialized school for high-needs children.

The court considered the Education Act requirements for compulsory education and the best interests of the child under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court ordered that the child attend the specialized school, finding that the school setting with skilled staff, structured routines, and peer interaction would best serve the child's developmental needs and maximize his potential.

This is a summary judgment motion arising from a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child born in 2012.

The Society sought to make the child a Crown ward with no access to the parents.

The mother was in default and had abandoned the child after only thirteen days of placement in her care.

The father sought placement of the child in his care subject to supervision.

The court found that the father lacked parenting ability and commitment to care for the child independently, had not visited the child since she was taken into care in October 2014, and had a long history of parenting deficiencies.

The court granted the Society's motion and made the child a Crown ward with no access to either parent.

In a motor vehicle personal injury jury trial, the defendants brought a threshold motion under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act seeking to bar the plaintiff’s claim for non‑pecuniary damages.

Liability had been admitted and the jury awarded $125,000 in general damages and $150,000 for future care costs.

The court considered whether the plaintiff sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function within the meaning of the statutory threshold under Bill 198 (Regulation 381/03).

Evidence showed the plaintiff suffered ongoing ankle and neck problems and an exacerbation of pre‑existing clinical depression that significantly limited his daily functioning.

The court held that the combined physical and psychological impairments met the statutory threshold and substantially interfered with the plaintiff’s usual activities of daily living.

The defendants’ threshold motion was dismissed and the plaintiff was entitled to judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict.