George Edward Lloyd

The plaintiff brought a motion to establish a timetable for its summary judgment motion.

The defendants opposed, insisting on receiving the plaintiff's Affidavit of Documents first, citing Rule 30.03.

The court, referencing amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure and Supreme Court guidance on summary judgment, ruled that an Affidavit of Documents is not a prerequisite in the absence of a discovery plan or when a summary judgment motion is pending.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, setting a timetable for the summary judgment proceedings and dismissing the defendants' objection.

Following an 18-day family law trial primarily concerning custody and access, the applicant father sought costs of $73,687.

The respondent mother argued for no costs due to divided success and her limited financial means.

The court found the applicant was more successful overall, having succeeded on the primary issue of the children's residence.

After considering the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and the respondent's financial hardship, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $52,000.

The court allowed the costs to be set off against any equalization payment but declined to set them off against spousal support or secure them against the respondent's separate civil litigation claim.

The moving defendants sought to set aside an earlier summary judgment enforcing mortgages, alleging fresh evidence and fraud arising from later bankruptcy and regulatory investigations connected to non-party individuals involved in the underlying transactions.

Applying the fresh evidence test under Rule 59.06(2), the court held the alleged new evidence did not probably change the prior result and amounted largely to suspicion and innuendo rather than proof that the impugned mortgages or quantum findings were affected.

The court nevertheless ordered the plaintiff mortgagee to provide an accounting of proceeds from the sale of the mortgaged properties and any income received from those properties, given the uncertainty surrounding related transactions and the need for transparency.

Requests to pay sale proceeds into court and to compel further discovery were refused.

The parties engaged in a high-conflict family law trial primarily concerning the custody and primary residence of their two children following the father's military posting to Petawawa.

The mother, who had suffered catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident, sought to maintain the children's primary residence in Kingston.

The court found that while both parents were capable, the mother had failed to facilitate contact between the children and the father.

Considering the older child's consistent wish to live with his father and the principle of maximum contact, the court ordered joint custody with primary residence to the father.

The court also ordered the father to pay spousal support and calculated arrears for Section 7 expenses.

Following a successful motion to vary a custody order granting the applicant sole custody, the court considered the respondent’s claim for costs.

The self-represented moving party did not file any submissions on costs despite extensions granted by consent.

The responding party sought recovery for preparation of a trial record, preparation of a draft order, and a prior motion relating to the return of the children.

The court held that the earlier motion costs had been reserved and declined to award them.

However, the court awarded partial costs for preparation of the trial record and draft order.

The applicant sought sole custody, child support, and equalization of net family property following the parties' separation.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, finding the respondent had abrogated his parental responsibilities and exhibited a cavalier attitude toward court orders.

The court imputed an annual income of $54,000 to the respondent for child support purposes due to his intentional under-employment and failure to disclose financial information.

Furthermore, the court found that the respondent's transfer of the matrimonial home to his father the day before the marriage was a sham, declaring the respondent the legal owner and ordering an equalization payment of $60,532.54 to the applicant, secured by a charge on the property.

The applicant sought leave under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to institute proceedings challenging prior family law orders and seeking damages for alleged fraud, abuse of process, and misconduct by the opposing party and counsel.

The applicant was subject to a vexatious proceedings order requiring leave of the court before commencing further proceedings.

The court held that the proposed motion lacked reasonable grounds and consisted largely of conclusory allegations of fraud unsupported by factual particulars.

The court also found that the applicant sought relief beyond what is permitted on a leave application under s. 140(4), including damages claims.

Leave to institute the proceeding was therefore refused and costs were awarded to the respondent.

Following an eight‑day family law trial involving a claim for unjust enrichment and claims for retroactive and ongoing child support, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant had served a written offer to settle before trial that was more favourable to the respondent than the ultimate result.

Applying rule 18.14 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that a strong presumption arises in favour of awarding full recovery of legal costs incurred after the offer where the opposing party fails to obtain a better result at trial.

The court found the hourly rate and time claimed by the applicant’s counsel to be reasonable and rejected arguments that the costs should be reduced.

Costs were fixed at $43,163.21 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.