Feven Glaizghi

In this family-law costs decision following a support and travel trial, the court addressed divided success, the effect of multiple settlement offers under the Family Law Rules, allegations of litigation harassment, and a claim for personal costs against opposing counsel.

The court held that the father was more successful overall at trial, but reduced his recovery because he took unreasonable positions on income and support, while also finding that the mother had taken more extreme and unreasonable positions.

The court rejected allegations that the father had been proven to have harassed the mother and counsel, and also rejected the request to impose personal costs on counsel, applying the two-part test for representative-at-fault costs with extreme caution.

The mother was ordered to pay trial-related and motion costs totalling $27,000, the father was ordered to pay counsel $15,000 for the costs proceeding, and the request to have the father's costs enforced by the Director as support was dismissed.

The father brought a Motion to Change seeking primary care, sole decision-making responsibility, and child support.

The mother sought changes to travel consent, holiday schedules, and retroactive child support.

The court found no material change in circumstances regarding the week-to-week shared parenting schedule and dismissed the father's request for primary care.

However, the court found a material change regarding decision-making, ordering joint decision-making instead of the mother having final authority.

The court also permitted both parents to travel internationally without the other's consent, terminated a police enforcement order, and imputed income to both parties due to underemployment and lack of disclosure, ordering the father to pay retroactive and ongoing child support.

J.N.Z. was found guilty by a jury of invitation to sexual touching and sexual interference against a child (RM) aged 8-12.

The offences involved multiple incidents of sexual touching and one act of oral sex, occurring over several years, with the offender in a position of trust.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Friesen, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for child sexual offences.

Despite mitigating factors (age, support, no prior record at the time of offences), aggravating factors included the victim's young age, significant victim impact (suicidal ideation), multiple incidents, breach of trust, and a pattern of opportunistic behaviour (overlapping with a previous conviction involving another child).

The court rejected a reformatory sentence, deeming a penitentiary term necessary.

This costs endorsement followed a two-day trial where the applicant mother sought supervised parenting time with her children, and the respondent father sought non-contact orders.

The court at trial denied the mother's request for parenting time and granted the father's non-contact orders, with the mother receiving only limited information about the children.

The father sought $19,045 in costs, while the mother requested nominal costs.

The court found the father to be the successful party and awarded him $8,500 in costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

Payment of these costs was suspended until the earliest of the mother obtaining employment, receiving Ontario Disability Support Payments (ODSP), or being released from CAMH, acknowledging her current detention and limited financial resources.

The applicant mother, found not criminally responsible for attempting to kill her two young children while in a state of psychosis, sought supervised parenting time and information about the children.

The respondent father opposed, citing severe trauma to himself and the children, particularly the older child, and fears for their safety.

The court denied the mother's request for in-person or virtual parenting time, finding it premature and detrimental to the children's emotional and psychological safety and well-being given the extreme circumstances and the mother's lack of insight.

Parenting time was made contingent on the children and father receiving therapeutic treatment and professional guidance for reintroduction, a process expected to take at least two years.

The court granted the father's request for contact restrictions but ordered him to provide limited information (pictures, redacted report cards) to the mother via her brother.

The applicant, charged with multiple counts of robbery alongside a co-accused, applied for severance on the basis that a joint trial would infringe his right to be tried within a reasonable time.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, jury trials were suspended, causing significant delay.

The applicant was willing to re-elect for a judge-alone trial, while the co-accused was not.

The court granted the severance application, finding that while most factors favoured a joint trial, the potential injustice caused by the delay and mutually inconsistent elections warranted severance.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy based on the landlords' requirement of the unit for their son's use.

The landlords brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the appeal raised no questions of law, challenged findings of mixed fact and law regarding good faith and relief from eviction, and was manifestly devoid of merit.

The court concluded the appeal was an attempt to delay the eviction and ordered the tenant to vacate the unit.

The accused was charged with wilfully committing an indecent act in a public place in the presence of one or more persons contrary to section 173(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused exposed his erect penis in a women's lingerie store in the presence of a woman and her eleven-year-old daughter.

The accused claimed he was displaying a six-inch silicon caulking object, not his penis, which he intended to use to model lingerie for his new girlfriend.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejected the accused's testimony as riddled with contradictions, and convicted the accused.