Gemma Josepha May Dingwall

In a family law costs decision following a focused hearing on common-law cohabitation, the court applied s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court reviewed governing costs principles, including presumptive entitlement for success at a step, fairness and reasonableness, access to justice, and the relevance of litigation conduct and financial circumstances to quantum.

Although the successful party sought full indemnity costs for broader steps in the proceeding, the court confined the award to the focused hearing and found full indemnity unwarranted on the record.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs at 60% of the focused-hearing amount, totaling $8,014.64 inclusive of HST, payable in any event of the cause.

The applicant sought spousal support and a declaration of an interest in the respondent's property, alleging they cohabited as common-law spouses from 2000 to 2019.

The respondent claimed they were merely platonic friends and roommates since 2007.

Following a focused hearing, the court applied the Molodowich factors and found that the parties' conduct, including shared living arrangements, joint activities, and holding themselves out as spouses, demonstrated a spousal relationship.

The court declared that the parties cohabited within the meaning of the Family Law Act from September 2001 to March 2019.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep her removed animals (a horse, pigs, poultry, and waterfowl) in care, and appealed the associated Statement of Account for boarding and veterinary costs.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the respondent did not have reasonable grounds to believe the pigs, poultry, and waterfowl would be in distress if returned, as the appellant had made significant improvements to their conditions.

However, the Board upheld the decision to keep the horse in care, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate an ability to provide the necessary nutrition for the horse to gain weight.

The Board also varied the Statement of Account from $8,872.45 to $5,599.15, reducing the boarding rates for the pigs and removing unnecessary veterinary examination fees.

The applicant society brought motions for the production of third-party medical and mental health records relating to the respondent mother, citing concerns about her mental health and substance misuse.

The mother opposed the motions, arguing that the release of the records would violate her privacy and section 8 Charter rights.

The court granted the motions, finding that the records were highly relevant to the child protection concerns and that the release was authorized by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The court limited the scope of the records to the period from January 2019 to the present and restricted their use to the child protection litigation.