Ivan S. Bloom

This is a costs endorsement following a lengthy trial in a family law proceeding.

The Applicant sought over $500,000 in costs, arguing she was entirely successful on all issues, particularly custody and access, and that her settlement offers were bested at trial.

The Respondent opposed, arguing the costs were unreasonable and that the Applicant was not entitled to pre-trial costs or full indemnity.

The court awarded the Applicant partial indemnity costs of $454,968.78, finding her largely successful and noting the Respondent's unreasonable conduct and failure to accept reasonable settlement offers.

The court declined to sever and make a portion of the costs collectible as child support.

The plaintiff condominium corporation moved for summary judgment against the defendants for common expense arrears, an unauthorized cheque, and declarations of oppression and breach of director's duty.

The defendants counterclaimed for oppression and raised a limitations defense.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly concerning witness credibility and the informal operation of the Board.

The court also noted that partial summary judgment was inappropriate due to the risk of duplicative and inconsistent findings given the shared factual background.

The applicants, CRD Construction Ltd. and Rob Leshuk, sought a declaration that their insurers, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada and Economical Mutual Insurance Company, had a duty to defend them against a counterclaim and to reimburse their legal fees.

The court found that Economical had waived its right to deny the duty to defend due to a reservation of rights letter and its acceptance.

However, the court found that the applicants' breaches of the duty of cooperation constituted non-compliance, making relief from forfeiture unavailable against Aviva, and that the applicants failed to prove their conduct was reasonable for relief from forfeiture against either insurer regarding the duty of cooperation.

Economical was ordered to defend and reimburse the applicants, while the application against Aviva was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order requiring him to pay $1,200 per month in spousal support following his retirement.

He argued the motion judge erred by providing insufficient reasons, miscalculating incomes, allowing 'double dipping' from his previously equalized pension, and ordering support indefinitely.

The Divisional Court dismissed most grounds of appeal, finding the motion judge properly applied the exceptions to the rule against double dipping.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to add a provision allowing either party to apply to vary the order when the respondent begins drawing her pension.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' 14-year-old daughter and an order terminating the respondent father's access, alongside resolution of outstanding equalization and child support issues.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the protracted high-conflict relationship, the father's lack of parenting skills, and the child's justified fear and refusal to see him.

The court rejected the father's allegations of parental alienation, awarding sole custody to the mother with no access to the father.

The court also ordered the father to pay an equalization payment of $38,095.88, retroactive child support and section 7 arrears of $16,618.12, and ongoing monthly support.

The applicant moved for an order determining the sum he must pay the respondent to purchase their jointly owned matrimonial home, effectively seeking to vary a previous order that required the home to be listed for sale.

The parties had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale that failed to close.

The court held that, absent an agreement or a formal motion to vary, it lacked jurisdiction to order a transfer of property to the applicant on new terms.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion but updated the timelines in the previous order to facilitate the sale of the home.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's decision to take no further action regarding her complaint against a physician.

The applicant, an autism advocate, complained about the physician's use of chelation therapy for children with autism spectrum disorder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the College's investigation was adequate and its decision not to refer the matter to discipline was reasonable, given the lack of patient-specific evidence of harm and the statutory protections for alternative medicine.

The accused, a youthful offender, was sentenced for his participation in a bank robbery where approximately $100,000 remained unrecovered.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary term, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with the accused's rehabilitative prospects, the court imposed a custodial sentence of 18 months less pre-trial custody credit, along with a $50,000 restitution order and ancillary orders.

Following convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference arising from repeated sexual touching of a child by the mother's partner in the family home, the court applied the rule against multiple convictions and conditionally stayed the sexual interference count.

On sentence, the court relied on the Supreme Court's framework in Friesen emphasizing proportionality, the protection of children, and the primacy of denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children.

Aggravating factors included the complainant's young age, multiple incidents, breach of trust as caregiver, and continuing emotional and psychological harm reflected in victim impact evidence.

Mitigating factors included the offender's lack of prior record and employment history, but collateral immigration and pandemic consequences did not justify a reduced sentence.

A penitentiary term of five and one-half years was imposed together with SOIRA, DNA, weapons prohibition, residence restriction, and communication orders.

The applicant railway company sought judicial review of an arbitration award that upheld a union grievance concerning work jurisdiction.

The arbitrator found that the applicant improperly assigned yard service work to a road service conductor-only crew, contrary to the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and concluded that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and application to the specific facts was intelligible, transparent, and justified.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy and ordering their eviction for failing to comply with a previous Board order.

The previous order required the tenants to remove items, including a fence made of sticks and pinecones, from the common area adjacent to their unit.

The tenants argued they were denied procedural fairness, the Board was biased, and the Board applied the wrong legal test.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness as the landlord was entitled to apply for eviction without notice under section 78 of the Residential Tenancies Act after the tenants breached the conditions of the previous order.

The court also found no evidence of bias and held that the Board's findings of fact were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought judicial review of the respondent City's actions during the expropriation of restrictive covenants in its lease.

The applicant alleged a denial of procedural fairness regarding the timing of disclosure and the City's refusal to consent to an adjournment of the Hearing of Necessity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the City met its statutory obligations and owed no broader common law duty of procedural fairness at that stage.

The Court also declined to rule on the validity of the expropriation, finding the application premature as the applicant had withdrawn from the statutory hearing process and no final expropriation decision had been made.

Following a ruling on cross-motions where the applicant was ordered to pay substantial indemnity costs, the court received written submissions on quantum.

The respondent sought $22,326.46, while the applicant argued for no costs or $2,500.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, the court fixed costs at $15,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes, payable within 30 days.

The County sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale for the applicants' abandoned leave to appeal motion regarding the production of records from closed municipal meetings.

The applicants' appeal became moot after closed meeting investigators concluded the meetings were improperly closed, leading the County to release the records.

Although the court found the leave motion would likely have been unsuccessful, it exercised its discretion under Rule 37.09(3) to order no costs due to the County's actions in improperly closing the meetings.

The moving party, a non-party to the underlying action, sought leave to appeal a costs order made against him by the trial judge.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal solely on the question of whether the trial judge erred in ordering costs payable by a non-party.

Costs of the motion for leave were fixed at $5,000, payable in the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent Municipal Property Assessment Corporation in the fixed amount of $2,500.

Following a motion where the applicant was permitted to amend the application, the respondent was unsuccessful on disclosure, and neither party obtained an advance of funds, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought $2,073.06 and the respondent sought $17,500.00.

Considering the mixed success and the parties' offers, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent costs of $3,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

The applicant moved for an advance on funds held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home, leave to amend his application, and disclosure of a deed and survey for the respondent's property in Sri Lanka.

The respondent also requested an advance from the trust funds.

The court dismissed both requests for an advance, finding it could not determine a minimum equalization payment on the record.

The court granted the applicant leave to amend his application, conditional on paying costs, and ordered the respondent to produce the deed and survey for the Sri Lankan property to facilitate a previously ordered appraisal.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding child access.

The applicant mother sought to hold the respondent father in contempt and vary access to supervised access, while the respondent sought to expand access or remedy the applicant's denial of access.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, noting a Children's Aid Society letter stating the children were not in need of protection and wished to see the respondent.

The court found neither party proved a material change in circumstances to vary the existing access orders.

However, the court found the applicant had denied access without a lawful basis and ordered her to comply immediately, awarding substantial indemnity costs to the respondent.

The moving parties (defendants) sought an order requiring the plaintiff to re-attend an examination for discovery to answer questions regarding damages, mitigation, and governmental land regulation issues.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing it was a delaying tactic.

The court partially granted the motion, ordering the plaintiff to re-attend for two hours to be examined on the issue of damages, finding it proportionate given the $300,000 claim.

However, the court declined to order further examination on the governmental land regulation documentation, as it was not satisfied the plaintiff could provide relevant evidence on that matter.