Frédéric P. Huard

The applicant sought costs after successfully defending a motion brought by the respondent regarding an alleged final agreement.

The applicant claimed up to $36,764.57 in full recovery costs.

The respondent argued the applicant should be sanctioned for improperly submitting documents to the judge after the hearing had concluded.

The court found the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs as the successful party.

While noting the applicant's post-hearing communications were improper, the court declined to impose a sanction because the late documents were not considered.

Finding the applicant's docketed time excessive, the court awarded a lump sum of $20,000 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for a temporary order to place the child in the care of the mother under the Society's supervision pending the final disposition of the application.

The child had been in the temporary care of the father since apprehension.

The court granted the motion, emphasizing the statutory requirement to return the child to the custodial parent if safe, the benefit of reuniting the child with siblings, and concerns regarding the father's pending criminal sentencing.

The respondent brought a motion seeking a declaration that the parties had entered into a binding partial agreement on December 22, 2016, concerning the transfer of the applicant's interest in a maple grove company located in Quebec.

The applicant opposed, arguing that essential terms of the agreement were not settled.

The court found that while some terms like price and payment were discussed, other crucial issues, including security for payments, indemnification for company expenses, and the resolution of a third-party claim, remained unresolved.

The court concluded that the parties had only reached an agreement in principle, not a binding contract, as all essential terms were not agreed upon.

Consequently, the respondent's motion was dismissed.

The court also issued orders for further financial disclosure from both parties.

The respondent wife brought a motion seeking spousal support and the immediate sale of the matrimonial home.

The request for sale was abandoned due to lack of court jurisdiction as the husband was the sole owner.

The applicant husband opposed spousal support, citing short cohabitation, the wife's extended residence in Africa during the marriage, alleged non-disclosure of bank accounts, and her ownership of properties in Africa.

The court found that the marriage had an economic impact on the wife's career and that the husband had a financial obligation due to an immigration sponsorship agreement.

The court ordered the husband to pay spousal support of $800 per month, exceeding the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, to meet the wife's transitional needs and prevent reliance on social assistance.

The respondent requested that her counsel be permitted to participate in an upcoming motion to change hearing by video conference and that a bilingual judge preside.

The applicant objected to the video conference request.

The court granted the request for a bilingual judge pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act, as French was the respondent's first language.

However, the court dismissed the request for video conferencing, noting that the hearing was for a final order, the respondent's counsel accepted the retainer knowing the hearing was in Toronto, and the volume of materials would make remote participation challenging.

Following a family law trial involving custody, access, child and spousal support, and property equalization, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The successful party sought recovery of legal costs after obtaining favourable results on most issues.

The court applied the Family Law Rules, including the presumption under Rule 24(1) that a successful party is entitled to costs and considered the impact of settlement offers under Rule 18.

The court found that the moving party’s settlement offers were more favourable than the trial outcome and therefore justified recovery of costs from the date of the offer.

Considering proportionality and the respondent’s financial circumstances, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant mother brought a motion to establish that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has jurisdiction to determine custody and access of the parties' three-year-old child.

The respondent father brought a motion to stay the application, arguing that a prior Québec order ratifying a 2009 custody agreement gave Québec exclusive jurisdiction.

The court found that the 2009 agreement and subsequent Québec order were null and void because the parties had reconciled for nearly two years after signing it.

The court held that the child was habitually resident in Ontario, or concurrently in Ontario and Québec, and that Ontario was the appropriate forum.

The mother's motion was granted and the father's motion to stay was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Deputy Judge's decision finding them liable for negligent misrepresentation in the sale of a mobile home.

The vendors had stated there was a 'new roof in 2002,' but only part of the roof had been replaced.

The Divisional Court applied the standard of palpable and overriding error to the Deputy Judge's findings of mixed fact and law.

The court upheld the finding that a special relationship existed, the statement was inaccurate, and the purchaser relied on it.

The appeal was dismissed.