Howard E. Staats

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for damages arising from the transfer of his house to his former common law spouse and caregiver in 2004.

The appellant, who suffered a catastrophic brain injury in 1998, had transferred the house to the respondent, who held his power of attorney.

The respondent subsequently mortgaged the property to her mother and later transferred it to her mother in satisfaction of the mortgage.

The trial judge found the transfer was a gift and dismissed all claims.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were deficient and failed to address the pleaded claims for breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

A new trial was ordered.

A family law trial determined the amount of retroactive child support and reimbursement for special or extraordinary expenses following a motion to change an earlier support order.

The applicant sought child support arrears for years predating a prior order and payment of s.7 expenses including orthodontic treatment and extracurricular activities.

The court applied the principles from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in D.B.S. and found the payor’s conduct blameworthy, including failing to disclose income and failing to provide required tax documentation.

As a result, the court granted retroactive support beyond the typical three‑year limitation and ordered payment of arrears plus the respondent’s proportionate share of special and extraordinary expenses.

The applicant brought a contempt motion alleging the respondent failed to comply with a prior court order requiring financial disclosure, including tax returns, notices of assessment, and a financial statement in relation to a motion to change child support.

Although the respondent did not initially comply with the disclosure deadline, he later produced substantial documentation after retaining counsel and made reasonable efforts to obtain records from the Canada Revenue Agency and former accountants.

Applying the three‑part test for contempt requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a deliberate and willful breach of a clear order, the court found the respondent’s conduct did not meet the required standard.

The evidence did not establish a deliberate or persistent refusal to comply.

The contempt motion was therefore dismissed, though the court found the respondent’s delay in disclosure unreasonable and ordered that the applicant be entitled to costs despite the dismissal.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 2004 child support order, seeking increased ongoing support and retroactive support due to the respondent's failure to disclose significant increases in his income.

The court found the respondent engaged in blameworthy conduct by ignoring the court order to provide annual income tax returns.

The court ordered ongoing child support based on an imputed income of $50,000 and awarded retroactive child support back to January 1, 2008, totaling $52,632 plus interest, with the applicant permitted to pursue further retroactive support at trial.

Following judgment in a civil action involving abuse of qualified privilege, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff sought full indemnification of legal costs beyond the ordinary costs regime.

The court held that the law of costs is not subsumed within the law of damages and that costs must be fixed under the discretion granted by the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Applying the partial indemnity scale and considering the complexity of the action and counsel’s work, the court fixed costs for fees and disbursements.

The plaintiff brought a defamation action arising from a newsletter article authored by a member of the Six Nations elected council and published by the council.

The article suggested that the plaintiff improperly demanded and received more than $200,000 in public funds without authorization or evidence of work performed.

The court found that the statements conveyed the meaning that the plaintiff was dishonest and had taken advantage of a crisis to obtain payment she did not earn.

Although the publication occurred on an occasion of qualified privilege because the author was reporting to community members on financial matters, the privilege was defeated by malice.

The court concluded that the author knew the statements were false and published them to discredit the plaintiff.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiff with general damages of $60,000.