Ivan S. Bloom

The moving party (respondent in the main proceeding) sought an adjournment of his own motion because the counsel working on the file had left the firm and new counsel was not ready.

The court granted the adjournment on terms, setting a peremptory return date and prohibiting the filing of further materials other than authorities.

The court awarded the responding party $4,500 in costs thrown away, payable within 30 days, failing which the responding party could move to dismiss the motion.

Following a decision on the merits, both the applicant and respondent sought costs of $15,000 against the other.

The court found that neither party was substantially successful, despite both investing considerable time and expense.

Consequently, the court ordered that costs be in the cause.

The applicant sought full recovery or substantial indemnity costs following a family law decision.

The respondents sought full recovery costs or no costs, citing limited means and divided success.

The court found the applicant was substantially successful despite divided success on an access order.

Taking into account the financial resources of one respondent and the limited role of the other, the court awarded the applicant $5,000 in inclusive costs, apportioned between the two respondents.

Following the applicant's substantial success on the merits, the court addressed the issue of costs.

Despite the respondent seeking costs against the applicant, the court awarded costs to the applicant based on her success.

The respondent was ordered to pay $3,200 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes within 60 days.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a 2009 child support order.

The applicant mother responded and sought retroactive variation of child support and section 7 expenses for their two children.

Applying the D.B.S. framework, the court found the father failed to diligently adjust support to reflect his increased income and ordered retroactive variation effective April 2015.

The court declined to impute income to the father, calculating arrears based on the parties' tax assessments.

The father was ordered to pay $35,872.70 in total arrears for child support and section 7 expenses.

The parties brought cross-motions in a high-conflict family law dispute.

The applicant sought a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act, variation of interim parenting orders, and an order dispensing with the respondent's consent for child counselling.

The respondent sought variation of the interim parenting orders.

The court ordered a section 112 investigation under the Courts of Justice Act on consent and dismissed the section 30 assessment request due to the parties' financial constraints.

The court dismissed both parties' motions to vary the interim parenting orders, finding neither established a material change in circumstances under the Gordon v. Goertz test.

The request to dispense with consent for counselling was also dismissed.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to vary a prior order that restricted his child from being in the presence of his life partner.

The applicant sought the variation because he and his partner were setting up a new household where the child would have overnight access.

The court found that the creation of the new household constituted a material change in circumstances that was not previously contemplated.

Concluding that it was in the child's best interests to have maximum contact with her father, the court granted the motion and varied the order to remove the restriction.

Tianya Shao, a director and secretary of the Plaintiff, Prime Global Solutions Inc., brought a motion under sections 246(1) and 247 of the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) seeking leave to bring a derivative action on behalf of the Plaintiff and to be appointed to control its conduct.

The Defendant, Lambton Conveyor Limited, did not oppose the motion.

Three other directors of the Plaintiff (Daniel Sturgeon, John Christopher Moorhouse, and Richard Depooter) refused to consent to the relief sought, necessitating the motion, but did not appear to oppose it.

The court granted leave for the derivative action, appointed Mr. Shao to control its conduct, and awarded substantial indemnity costs of $6423.02 against the three non-consenting directors, payable jointly and severally.

The court also addressed potential procedural defects by invoking Rules 1.04(1), 1.04(1.1), 2.01, and 2.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Applicant sought interim custody, interim child support, retroactive child support, and enforcement of a prior disclosure order.

The Respondent sought interim access.

The court granted interim custody to the Applicant and ordered the Respondent to pay interim child support based on an imputed annual income of $40,000, declining retroactive support at this stage due to the interim nature of the order and the state of the record.

The Respondent was granted supervised daytime access on alternate weekends, with overnight access denied due to the children's best interests and the unsuitability of the Respondent's living arrangements.

The court also ordered the Respondent to comply with the outstanding disclosure order within 15 days, failing which the Applicant could seek further relief.

Costs submissions were invited.

The Applicant and Respondent A. S. Tsinoglou brought cross-motions concerning interim child support, spousal support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, interim access, and return of belongings.

The court addressed these issues prior to a case conference due to urgency and hardship.

The court found Santiago and Alejandra to be children of the marriage for interim child support purposes, awarded interim child and spousal support to the Applicant, and granted her exclusive possession of the matrimonial home (a leasehold interest) and maintenance payments from A. S. Tsinoglou.

Interim access was granted to A. S. Tsinoglou for Christian, and he was permitted to retrieve belongings.

The accused, Jerome Lemon-Allison, was charged with robbery of a Scotiabank branch.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including video identification, inculpatory statements made to undercover police officers, and evidence of acts and circumstances.

The court applied principles from R. v. Nikolovski for video identification and R. v. Villaroman for assessing circumstantial evidence.

The doctrine of recent possession was considered but not ultimately applied.

The court found a strong resemblance between the accused and individuals in Snapchat and surveillance videos, and accepted the reliability of the undercover officers' testimony regarding the accused's admissions about possessing cash and needing money laundering services.

The court concluded that the only reasonable inference was that the accused was a party to the robbery and found him guilty as charged.

The applicant brought a motion for an order dispensing with service on the respondent and for directions.

The court awarded interim custody of the children to the applicant without access to the respondent, finding it in the children's best interests, and granted the applicant decision-making authority for medical and educational needs.

An uncontested trial on affidavit evidence was ordered to address permanent custody, access, and the effect of a Quebec court order.

Other claims by the applicant, such as a declaration of biological fatherhood and birth certificate amendments, were not to be addressed at this trial due to the absence of appropriate parties.

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.

The applicant sought an uncontested divorce based on affidavit evidence.

The court dismissed the application without prejudice because the applicant failed to file a clearance certificate as required by Rule 36(4) of the Family Law Rules, failed to provide clear evidence regarding the respondent's prior marital status under Rule 36(5), and omitted the commissioning date on the amended affidavit.

The court also noted the requirements under section 12 of the Divorce Act for granting an earlier effective date for a divorce.

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.

The respondent father brought a motion to change an interim order, seeking to terminate child support for an adult child and to temporarily terminate ongoing spousal support and arrears due to a medical inability to work.

On consent, the court ordered the final termination of child support as the child was no longer a 'child of the marriage' under the Divorce Act.

The court dismissed the motion to vary spousal support and arrears without prejudice, noting the parties agreed that the medical evidence regarding the father's inability to work needed to be supplemented.

The court also ordered the exchange of updated financial disclosure.

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.

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.