Ivan S. Bloom

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs arising from a prior motion.

The Applicant sought substantial indemnity costs based on her success, while the Respondent argued against any costs order, citing alleged improper conduct by the Applicant.

The court considered the Applicant's substantial success, the acrimonious nature of the parties' interactions, and their limited means during the pandemic, in accordance with Family Law Rule 24.

The Applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs.

This is a costs endorsement following an order of May 25, 2020.

The Applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $3613.74 plus $500 for costs submissions, based on success on the motion.

The Respondent argued for no costs, or that costs be reserved to the trial judge, or offset against child support arrears, and highlighted her limited means.

The court considered the Applicant's substantial success and the Respondent's limited means, fixing costs at $3500.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes, payable by the Respondent to the Applicant within 60 days.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs arising from a previous order for a discovery plan.

The Plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing success on the motion, delay, and unreasonable conduct by the Defendants.

The Defendants sought partial indemnity costs, claiming the motion was unnecessary.

The court found the underlying motion necessary due to the Defendants' insufficient cooperation and that the Plaintiff was substantially successful.

Consequently, the Plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion where the Applicant was successful.

The Applicant sought costs on a full or partial indemnity basis, citing success and the Respondent's unreasonable conduct.

The Respondent argued against costs due to the Applicant's failure to serve an offer to settle, or alternatively, proposed a lower partial indemnity amount.

The court awarded the Applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding her success warranted it but not the Respondent's conduct for a higher scale.

Costs were ordered payable to Legal Aid Ontario.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion decided on April 23, 2020.

The Respondent was substantially successful on the underlying motion.

Considering the Applicant's limited means, the court awarded costs to the Respondent on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $2600, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and applicable taxes.

The Applicant is to pay this sum to Legal Aid Ontario within 90 days, with the order explicitly stating it is not to be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant sought to return their child to an equal week-about parenting schedule, citing urgency due to the pandemic.

The respondent consented to the return to the schedule but cross-moved for a Voice of the Child Report, a s. 30 Children’s Law Reform Act assessment, or a s. 112 Courts of Justice Act report.

The court granted the applicant's request for the immediate return to the established parenting schedule with police enforcement and ordered compliance with COVID-19 directives and non-disparagement.

The respondent's cross-motion for reports was dismissed without prejudice due to lack of reasonable notice and the absence of a case conference.

The applicant sought an urgent order for the sale of the matrimonial home and mortgage deferral due to dire financial circumstances exacerbated by the pandemic, and for the respondent's signature on sale documents to be dispensed with.

The court granted the applicant's motion under the Partition Act, finding the motion urgent and the respondent's proposed alternatives unrealistic, despite the parties no longer being "spouses" under the Family Law Act.

The applicant moved to vary existing interim orders to grant her primary residence of the children, alleging the respondent failed to comply with COVID-19 protocols.

The court found that the applicant did not prove a material change in circumstances on a balance of probabilities, as the evidence of non-compliance was largely hearsay.

The motion to vary was dismissed.

However, the court issued additional orders requiring both parties to comply with all applicable governmental directives and recommendations relating to COVID-19, specifically prohibiting children from visiting other households and restricting who could accompany the respondent during child exchanges.

The accused, Angella Marie Lewis, was found guilty by a jury of importing 1.955 kilograms of cocaine.

This decision outlines the reasons for her sentence.

The court considered the sentencing range for importing multi-kilograms of cocaine (6-8 years), aggravating factors including her lengthy criminal record (though with a significant gap), and mitigating factors such as her difficult family history, remorse, and restrictive bail conditions over four years.

The court also addressed ancillary orders for forfeiture, a weapons prohibition, and a DNA data bank order.

The plaintiff condominium corporation moved to amend its statement of claim to add a claim for damages related to the repair and replacement of a transformer, alleging violations of environmental regulations and fraudulent concealment by a former director.

The motion was opposed by several defendants on the grounds that the new claim was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period and constituted an abuse of process due to a pending arbitration.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred as the limitation period began when its corporate solicitor received an order from Environment Canada in February 2014, putting it on notice of the damage, and that full quantification of damages was not required to start the clock.

The court also rejected the argument that a civil action was not an "appropriate means" to seek a remedy at that time.

The applicant brought a motion seeking interim spousal support, security orders against the respondent's estate, and an order for non-depletion of her equalization claim, citing urgency due to the respondent's terminal illness.

The court granted the motion to proceed before a case conference due to urgency and awarded interim spousal support of $547.00 per month, binding on the respondent and his estate.

However, the court declined to grant the additional security orders, noting the uncertain strength of the applicant's claims regarding spousal support delay and equalization limitation periods.

The interim support order was made reviewable in four months.

The Applicant sought a temporary order for the children of the marriage to be placed in his care for 90 days, with no contact with the Respondent except as directed by a therapist, alleging parental alienation.

The Respondent opposed the motion.

The court considered whether the "material change in circumstances" test applied to a variation of a temporary, without prejudice order, ultimately accepting for the motion's purpose that the Applicant only needed to demonstrate the order was in the children's best interests.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Applicant had not provided sufficient clear evidence, particularly noting issues with the admissibility and weight of the counsellor's reports as expert evidence without proper voir dire and cross-examination.

The applicant sought to vary a consent order for spousal support and matrimonial home carrying costs, citing undue hardship and a material change in circumstances due to income loss and alleged hidden income by the respondent.

The court applied the material change test from L.M.P. v. L.S. and found that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving a material change on a balance of probabilities.

The motion was dismissed.

The Plaintiff, 1305268 Ontario Inc., moved for summary judgment seeking foreclosure on a mortgage against the Defendant, 823042 Ontario Inc. The Defendant argued that the mortgage enforcement was statute-barred by a 10-year limitation period, alleging that three letters purporting to renew the mortgage were fraudulent.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the authenticity of the renewal letters and the limitations defense.

The judge emphasized the necessity of *viva voce* evidence and credibility assessment, particularly from a key witness, Kenneth James, and drew an adverse inference from the Plaintiff's failure to call him.

The respondent moved to vary a child support order and enforce an order for s. 7 expenses.

The court found a material change in circumstances, imputed income of $150,000 annually to the applicant due to significantly lower tax rates in Texas, and ordered child support for one child (Amina) conditional on her return to Canada.

The court also ordered the applicant to pay $36,928.50 (70.34%) of the s. 7 post-secondary education expenses for the other child (Aya), finding the expenses reasonable and the parent-child relationship not terminated for these purposes.

The Applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis due to the Respondent's unreasonable or bad faith conduct in financial disclosure during a family law proceeding that had settled by consent order.

The Respondent argued for parties to bear their own costs or for him to receive partial indemnity.

The court found the Respondent's conduct regarding disclosure to be unreasonable, though not in bad faith, as he was inattentive to his duty to make full and fair disclosure.

This unreasonable conduct was deemed to trump any success the Respondent might have had in the underlying litigation.

The court also addressed the retrospective application of changes to the Family Law Rules concerning costs and the principles governing "costs thrown away." The Applicant was awarded costs on a substantial recovery basis.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's negligence claim, arguing issue estoppel, abuse of process, and collateral attack based on a prior Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The Board had found the landlord breached maintenance obligations but did not find that the lack of a handrail caused the plaintiff's fall.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding it would be unjust to apply issue estoppel or abuse of process due to scant evidence, unrepresented parties, and lack of detailed reasoning at the Board.

The court also determined that the action was not a collateral attack, as the application of the Occupiers' Liability Act was a new issue not before the Board, and the Board's jurisdiction over that matter was questionable.

The defendant moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss all claims by 1198934 Ontario Inc. and specific claims by 1526806 Ontario Inc. for negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, punitive damages, and aggravated damages.

The court dismissed the claims by 1198934 Ontario Inc. due to lack of privity of contract and rejected an attempt to amend the claim for unjust enrichment as untimely.

Claims for aggravated damages were dismissed because corporations cannot suffer intangible injuries.

Claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation were dismissed due to an absence of evidence of loss or reliance.

However, the motion to dismiss the claim for punitive damages was denied, as it was intertwined with the breach of contract claim that was proceeding to trial, raising an unacceptable risk of inconsistent factual findings.

The moving parties (Peel Housing Corporation and The Corporation of the Regional Municipality of Peel) sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's (Jacqueline Barrett) action for damages due to alleged arsenic fume exposure.

The plaintiff failed to provide admissible medical evidence to support her claim, specifically an affidavit from her family doctor despite court orders, leading to an adverse inference.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment, dismissing the action.

The alternative motion for security for costs was not addressed.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order compelling them to answer questions refused during an examination in aid of execution.

They also requested an extension of time to file the notice of motion for leave to appeal and a stay of the order pending appeal.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that neither branch of the test under Rule 62.02(4) was met.

There was no conflicting decision on a matter of principle, and no serious doubt about the correctness of the order, nor did the proposed appeal raise matters of general importance beyond the immediate parties.

Consequently, the requests for an extension of time and a stay were also dismissed.