James A. Ironside

The parties brought multiple motions concerning child support for two adult children, spousal support, and prejudgment interest on an equalization payment.

The court ordered the respondent to pay child support arrears for Aryn and temporary spousal support to the applicant, increasing after child support for Dale ends.

The applicant was ordered to pay child support for Dale until December 31, 2016.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay prejudgment interest on the equalization payment, rejecting the argument that pension transfer as a payment method negates interest.

The Plaintiff, Craig Frohlich, sought substantial indemnity costs after successfully obtaining declaratory relief, an injunction, and nominal damages in a dispute with his cottage neighbours, John and Diane Ferraro.

The Ferraros' counterclaim for a prescriptive easement was dismissed.

Frohlich argued he met or exceeded his offer to settle, entitling him to substantial indemnity costs post-offer.

The court found that Frohlich's offer to settle was broader than the relief ultimately granted at trial, particularly regarding property covered by water.

Therefore, Frohlich did not meet or exceed his offer, and partial indemnity costs were awarded throughout.

The court reduced the total partial indemnity costs from approximately $41,000 to $36,000, citing the Plaintiff's delay in amending his claim prior to trial as a factor in encouraging settlement.

The plaintiff property owner brought an action for trespass and an injunction against the defendant neighbours, who counterclaimed for a prescriptive easement over the dry land portion of the plaintiff's water lot.

The court found that the defendants' historical use of the land was either with the express or implied permission of the plaintiff and his predecessors, defeating the claim for a prescriptive easement.

The court granted the plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering the dry portions of the water lot and awarded nominal damages for trespass.

The defendant Debra Penman moved to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff Mary Lou McGillvray brought a cross-motion for leave to amend.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to further amend her claim to sue in her capacity as trustee for unjust enrichment.

This endorsement addresses the costs of these motions.

The court found that the motions were necessary due to the plaintiff's failure to adequately respond to the defendant's warnings about the deficient claim.

Despite the plaintiff obtaining leave to amend, the defendant's motion was necessary to clarify the cause of action.

The defendant Debra Penman was awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $5,000.00, payable in any event of the cause at the conclusion of the trial.

Following a four‑day family law trial addressing property division and spousal support, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Although the applicant obtained significant retroactive support and equalization relief, success at trial was mixed, with several issues resolved in the respondent’s favour, including income findings and an inheritance exclusion claim.

The court considered the parties’ settlement offers under rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules and the general costs factors under rule 24.

Substantial indemnity costs were found inappropriate due to mixed success and reasonable litigation conduct by both parties.

The court reduced the applicant’s claimed partial indemnity costs and ordered the respondent to pay a fixed amount.

Following a 14-year marriage, the parties proceeded to trial to resolve issues of child support, spousal support, and equalization.

The court determined the respondent's income, accounting for bonuses and a voluntary job change, and imputed $20,000 in income to the applicant, recognizing her long absence from the workforce to care for the children.

The court awarded retroactive and ongoing child support, as well as indefinite spousal support in the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines to address compensatory and non-compensatory needs.

The applicant's claim to exclude a $10,000 inheritance from her net family property was dismissed, as the court found the funds were used for family landscaping, resulting in an equalization payment of $34,659 to the applicant.

The applicant sought to enforce a non-competition clause in a locum agreement against a chiropractor who later practised in a nearby town and treated former clinic patients.

The court held the agreement had not expired, but found the restrictive covenant unenforceable because any proprietary interest existed only until the clinic was sold and a non-solicitation clause would have adequately protected the clinic’s interests.

The clause was found to restrain competition generally by prohibiting treatment of former patients rather than merely solicitation.

The application was dismissed and the respondent received costs.

The appellant appealed an order holding her jointly and severally liable for trust funds wrongfully removed from a trust established for grandchildren beneficiaries.

The Court of Appeal upheld findings that the appellant abdicated her role as co-trustee by authorizing her nephew to invest trust funds in his unfettered discretion and then making no inquiries into the investments or administration of the trust.

Relief under s. 35(1) of the Trustee Act was unavailable because the loss arose from the investment of trust property and the appellant had not acted reasonably.

The exculpatory clause in the trust indenture did not protect a trustee who improperly delegated her powers and failed to function as a trustee.

The appeal was dismissed with nominal costs to the respondent.

Following a seven‑day civil trial concerning a prescriptive easement and negligent misrepresentation regarding a shared waterline, the successful plaintiff sought costs exceeding $300,000 after obtaining a declaration that no easement existed and damages of $25,500 against one defendant.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to costs as the successful party and that her Rule 49 offer justified partial indemnity costs up to the offer date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

However, the court found the claimed fees and disbursements excessive and disproportionate to the result achieved, particularly given the plaintiff’s unsuccessful fraud and punitive damages claims and the large damages claim that was not proven.

Exercising discretion under Rule 57, the court reduced the fees by approximately 50% and disallowed certain expert and research disbursements.

Costs were allocated between the defendants in proportion to their responsibility for the issues at trial.

Following a family law trial addressing net family property issues, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The court noted that the trial reasons largely supported the mother’s position regarding the elements of net family property and raised credibility and disclosure concerns about the husband’s evidence.

Although the applicant’s bill of costs was not unreasonable, the court found that responsibility for the need for trial was not entirely one-sided.

Balancing these considerations, the court exercised its discretion to fix costs in favour of the applicant.

Costs were fixed at $60,000 all-inclusive.

The parties separated after a 30-year marriage during which they operated a horse training business and farm.

The court determined the equalization of net family property, finding that the respondent could not saddle the applicant with business debts that were part of a joint enterprise with their son.

The applicant was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $31,455.03.

The court also imputed income to the respondent and ordered him to pay a lump sum spousal support of $80,000 to the applicant, resulting in a net payment to the applicant of $48,544.97.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that conducted an accounting between the parties following a failed joint venture in an excavating business.

The trial judge found the appellants owed the respondents a net amount of $3,271.60.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge exhibited bias, ignored evidence, and decided the case on an unpleaded issue.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no bias, no reviewable error in the accounting, and that the pleadings broadly contemplated an accounting.

The respondents' cross-appeal for costs was also dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that offset their damages claim against the respondents' claim for unpaid wages, resulting in a net amount owed to the respondents.

The appellants argued the trial judge exhibited bias, improperly limited evidence, and decided the case on an unpleaded issue.

The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's refusal to award costs to two dismissed defendants.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, no reviewable error in the accounting, and that the pleadings were broad enough to encompass the accounting conducted.

The appellant appealed from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal which set aside his acquittals and substituted convictions for possession of pay television decoders intended to access a telecommunication facility without payment, contrary to s. 327(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the provision and upholding the substituted convictions.