Heather A. McGee

In a high-conflict family law trial, the court determined issues of child support, spousal support, and equalization following a four-year litigation history.

The applicant mother sought an unequal division of net family property and high support amounts, resisting the sale of the heavily encumbered matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the claims for unequal division, ordered the home sold, and imputed income to both parties.

The applicant was found to have acted in bad faith by filing false Statements of Arrears.

The court ordered the applicant to reimburse the respondent for her proportionate share of Section 7 expenses and post-separation adjustments out of her equalization payment.

The respondent mother brought a motion to set aside terms of a final consent order, claiming the applicant father had undisclosed corporate interests.

After the father's civil litigation regarding those interests failed, the mother continued her family law proceeding but ultimately withdrew it on the eve of trial.

The father sought costs of $105,504.

The court found the mother's continued litigation after the civil suit failed was unreasonable.

Applying Rule 12(3) of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the father costs.

The court declined to award full recovery under Rule 18(14) because the father's offer to settle did not remain open until the hearing.

Costs were fixed at $51,076 on a partial recovery basis.

This is a costs decision following a successful anti-SLAPP motion brought by Agin Williams against Vac Developments Limited, which resulted in the dismissal of the company's counterclaim.

Williams sought full indemnity costs of $94,883.60 and $20,000 in damages.

Vac Developments conceded costs were payable but argued the amount was inflated, proposing $20,000.

The court awarded Williams $45,200 in costs (fees and disbursements of $40,000 plus HST), finding the amount sought excessive but justifying a full indemnity award due to the punitive nature of the counterclaim and power imbalance.

No damages were awarded as bad faith or improper purpose was not found, nor evidence of damages presented during the motion.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the denial of his application for Ontario Disability Support Program benefits.

The Divisional Court found that while the Tribunal correctly assessed the appellant's physical impairments, it erred in law by disregarding and failing to appreciate relevant evidence regarding his long-standing mental health impairments.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was returned to the Tribunal for a re-hearing before a different member.

This is a costs endorsement following a supplemental costs order.

The applicant, Mr. S, sought recovery of costs from the respondent, Ms. A, which included previous contempt penalties, appeal costs, motion costs, and trial costs.

Ms. A had filed for bankruptcy and sought to adjourn the costs hearing, which was dismissed.

The court confirmed Mr. S's entitlement to set off outstanding costs against child and spousal support.

Mr. S requested over $53,000 in costs for the hearing, while Ms. A argued for each party to bear their own costs or pay $13,000.

The court disallowed costs for multiple counsel (except for a bankruptcy lawyer whose retention was deemed necessary due to Ms. A's arguments) and noted the absence of an offer to settle from either party.

Ultimately, the court awarded Mr. S a partial recovery of $27,685, citing the lack of effort to resolve costs as a factor for the partial award.

The landlords appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding they misused the process of terminating a tenancy for personal use and awarding compensation to the tenants.

The landlords argued they were denied procedural fairness because they did not receive notice of the hearing due to an email security issue while travelling abroad.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LTB's conclusion that notice was received was a finding of fact not subject to appeal, and that the landlords' own version of events confirmed they improperly sought to oust the tenants to sell the property.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal denying her claims for various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the insurer failed to properly manage her request for a catastrophic impairment designation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the adjudicator correctly concluded that the issue of catastrophic impairment was not properly before the tribunal because the appellant had not initiated a claim or provided an evidentiary basis for it.

The court found no errors of law in the adjudicator's decision.

The applicant, a former employee, brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the respondent employer's $1.5 million counterclaim for defamation, injurious falsehood, and unlawful interference with economic interests.

The counterclaim arose from the applicant's statements to CTV News regarding alleged workplace racism and his subsequent layoff.

The court found that while the respondent met the threshold for substantial merit regarding the defamation claim and the applicant's fair comment defence might not succeed, the public interest in protecting the applicant's expression on anti-Black racism in the workplace overwhelmingly outweighed the public interest in allowing the disproportionate and unsubstantiated counterclaim to continue.

The counterclaim was dismissed.

The applicant father sought to set off retroactive child support and section 7 expenses against a substantial costs award owed to him by the respondent mother, who had declared bankruptcy.

The court granted the set-off, finding that the respondent had litigated with impunity and that the children would not suffer undue hardship.

The court also provided directions on future spousal support and ongoing child support issues, noting that ongoing spousal support could not be crystallized into a lump sum due to potential for variation.

The applicant, Ms. Wang, sought costs after successfully obtaining a comprehensive parenting order and a detailed summer schedule for the child, following the respondent's (Dr. Tang) unilateral suspension of parenting time.

Ms. Wang sought full costs of $9,661.50.

Dr. Tang argued for divided success or deferral of costs.

The court found Ms. Wang was the successful party on the dominant issue and that Dr. Tang's litigation conduct was unreasonable, particularly his refusal to mediate.

Despite Ms. Wang's inadequate Bill of Costs and lack of an Offer to Settle, the court awarded partial costs of $6,780 to Ms. Wang, considering the principles of indemnification, settlement encouragement, and discouraging inappropriate behaviour.

The applicant sought child support, spousal support, equalization, and vesting of the matrimonial home due to the respondent's non-compliance and failure to participate in the uncontested trial.

The court imputed income to the respondent, awarded lump sum spousal support due to a history of non-payment, and granted a vesting order for the matrimonial home to satisfy the total financial obligations, including child support arrears, spousal support, equalization payment, and costs.

The respondent, Ms. Harron, brought a motion for orders concerning parenting and financial support for the two younger children of her common-law relationship with the applicant, Mr. Hoy.

Mr. Hoy brought a cross-motion for joint decision-making and a shared parenting arrangement.

The court granted Ms. Harron sole decision-making responsibility, ordered Mr. Hoy to pay table child support based on his CPP disability income, and directed that the CPP children's disability benefit be paid directly to Ms. Harron.

The court also adopted Ms. Harron's proposed parenting schedule and denied Mr. Hoy's requests for shared transportation costs and Section 7 expenses due to his modest means.

The court declined to rule on Mr. Hoy's prospective relocation claim.

This decision addresses cross-motions concerning parenting time and decision-making responsibility for a 15-year-old child.

The father sought to suspend the mother's parenting time, gain sole decision-making, and dispense with the mother's consent for various matters, citing past conduct.

The mother sought to restore weekend parenting time and alternating weeks during the summer.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding his requests disproportionate and noting his lack of willingness to support the child's relationship with the mother.

The court granted the mother's motion, ordering a specific parenting schedule, including adjustments for the father's pre-planned summer activities, and emphasized the need to resolve outstanding financial issues, including the sale of the matrimonial home.

Following a lengthy contract dispute where the defendant was wholly successful, the defendant sought costs against the plaintiff.

The court found that the plaintiff had registered a grossly inflated construction lien, failed to make or accept reasonable settlement offers, refused to admit facts, and engaged in spoliation of evidence.

Applying the costs provisions of the Construction Lien Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded the defendant substantial indemnity costs of $135,000.

The court declined to hold the plaintiff's principal personally liable for costs as he was not a party to the proceeding and no finding of fraud was made against him.

This costs endorsement arises from a successful motion by Prem Kumar Kapila, an added respondent, to be removed from a family law proceeding initiated by his son, Sahil Kapila, against his former daughter-in-law, Rubi Chhina.

Prem sought full recovery of his costs from Rubi, who had named him as a party without proper claims.

The court awarded Prem $10,250 plus HST in costs, finding Rubi's reliance on former counsel's advice and her claim of modest means insufficient to deviate from the cost consequences of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court emphasized Prem's offer to settle and Rubi's control over significant funds as factors supporting the award.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Assessment Review Board denying their motion to amend their Statement of Issues to include evidence of reduced property values during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the application was premature, did not meet the high threshold of exceptional circumstances required to review an interlocutory decision, and that the applicants had an adequate alternative remedy in the form of a statutory appeal from the Board's final decision.

The applicant, Sahil Kapila, brought a motion to remove his father, Prem Kumar Kapila, as an added respondent in a matrimonial dispute with his former spouse, Rubi Chhina.

Rubi had added Prem, making various claims including domestic violence, trespass, rent/utilities, and trust claims over property and funds.

The court found that Rubi's claims against Prem did not disclose a reasonable cause of action under Rule 7(3) of the Family Law Rules, nor did they meet the threshold for adding a party under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the motion to remove Prem as a party, thereby also dismissing Rubi's cross-motion seeking financial disclosure and freezing of Prem's assets.

The plaintiff, Maxpro Management Services Ltd., brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, Global Transauto Inc., Djamilya Kar, and Mido Salik, for breach of a fuel card agreement and personal guarantee.

The defendants failed to appear for the motion and did not pay previously ordered costs.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the breach of contract and contractual interest.

The court also pierced the corporate veil to hold Mido Salik jointly and severally liable with Global Transauto Inc. and Djamilya Kar, based on his misrepresentations and control over the corporation's actions, despite his denial and Ms. Kar's conflicting affidavit.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking to return his three-year-old son to Brampton after the applicant mother relocated to Scarborough for subsidized housing.

The mother had been living in a shelter and accepted the housing offer due to limited options.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding it was not urgent and that the mother's relocation was a reasonable, child-focused decision given her dire housing circumstances.

The court emphasized the importance of problem-solving and settlement efforts before litigation, especially before a Case Conference.

Costs were awarded against the father for unreasonable litigation conduct and lack of candour in his materials.

This costs endorsement followed a trial of an issue where the Separation Agreement was set aside (Applicant's primary claim) and the date of separation was determined (Respondent's alternative position).

The Applicant, M.H., sought full costs recovery, while the Respondent, O.K., argued for no costs due to divided success and M.H.'s unreasonable conduct.

The court found M.H. to be the significantly more successful party on the dominant issue of setting aside the agreement, especially given her Rule 18(14) Offer to Settle and O.K.'s complete failure to make any offer.

Despite some unreasonable conduct by M.H. (financial disclosure, inadmissible evidence) leading to a modest reduction, and O.K.'s success on the ancillary separation date issue, M.H. was awarded substantial costs.

The court drew an adverse inference against O.K. for failing to provide his own Bill of Costs.