4 total
Costs order varied to award appellants $5,447.39 for the summary judgment motion only.
Following a successful appeal that set aside a summary judgment dismissing the appellants' claim, the respondent sought to vary the costs order.
The respondent argued that the costs of the action unrelated to the summary judgment motion should not be payable since the action would proceed.
The Court of Appeal agreed and amended its previous judgment to vacate the motions judge's costs order and award the appellants $5,447.39 for the costs of the summary judgment motion.
The constitution and by-laws of a voluntary religious association form a binding contract with members.
The appellants, former members of an incorporated church's congregation, were expelled.
They commenced an action to void the expulsion, alleging the church failed to follow its internal procedures and violated their rights.
The motion judge granted summary judgment, finding no underlying contract.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the church's constitution and by-laws constituted a contract binding on both members and the organization.
The court found a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the contractual provisions for expulsion were breached, as the respondents failed to adduce sufficient evidence of the procedures followed.
Divided success on interim family motion justified no costs award.
Following an interim family law motion addressing child support, use of RESP funds for a child's post-secondary expenses, and interim spousal support, the court considered written submissions on costs.
The moving party had sought table child support and higher spousal support under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, while the responding party argued RESP funds should cover both educational and living expenses.
The court had largely accepted the responding party’s position regarding the use of RESP funds and ordered interim spousal support within the responding party’s proposed range.
Given the divided success of the motion and the fact that the final order was less favourable to the moving party than her settlement offer, the court determined that neither party achieved sufficient success to justify a costs award.
Appeal allowed; constructive trust claims permitted to proceed to trial as foreign consent order scope disputed.
The appellant appealed a motion judge's order that struck her constructive trust claims on the basis of res judicata stemming from a consent order in Ireland.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that conflicting evidence regarding the scope of the Irish consent order and the respondent's domicile must be resolved at trial.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the respondent's argument that Ontario was forum non conveniens, noting that Ontario was the acknowledged appropriate forum for the appellant's support claims.
