The court awarded full recovery costs of $17,500 against an applicant who made unsubstantiated fraud allegations.
This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an urgent motion brought by the applicant, Daniel Kirk Howard, to set aside a prior endorsement by Justice Tweedie, alleging fraud on the part of the respondent, Teaha Adele Howard.
The court dismissed the fraud allegation in a previous endorsement, finding the evidence unconvincing.
In this costs decision, the court found that the applicant's unsubstantiated fraud allegation constituted bad faith, attracting full recovery costs for the respondent.
Despite the respondent's entitlement to full recovery, the court applied principles of reasonableness and proportionality, reducing the claimed amount.
The applicant was ordered to pay $17,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements to the respondent.
Partition and sale of matrimonial home ordered; father's claim for exclusive possession dismissed.
The parties brought competing motions regarding the jointly owned matrimonial home.
The father sought exclusive possession, while the mother, who resided in the home with the children, sought partition and sale.
The court dismissed the father's claim for exclusive possession, finding no basis for it.
The court granted the mother's request for partition and sale, noting the prima facie right to sale, the unsustainable carrying costs, and the lack of prejudice to the father.
The court also ordered that the mother receive 50% of the net proceeds of the sale immediately, with the remainder held in trust.
Human rights application dismissed due to prior settlement of termination grievance and untimely filing.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and failure to accommodate leading up to and including her termination.
The respondent sought to dismiss the application on the basis that the parties had previously signed Minutes of Settlement resolving a union grievance regarding her discharge, and that the remaining allegations were untimely.
The Tribunal found that the applicant freely entered into the settlement without duress, making it an abuse of process to litigate the termination.
The Tribunal further held that the pre-termination accommodation allegations were filed beyond the one-year limitation period and the applicant failed to establish a good faith explanation for the delay.
The application was dismissed.
