James David Singer

The respondent sought costs following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to set aside a purported settlement and the respondent's cross-motion for summary judgment to enforce the settlement.

The respondent claimed costs on a full recovery basis or alternatively on a partial indemnity basis up to May 15, 2025, and thereafter on a full indemnity basis, citing the applicant's bad faith conduct.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis prior to May 16, 2025, and on a full indemnity basis thereafter, but reduced the amount to account for proportionality and excluded costs related to the respondent's cross-motion and attendance by a second counsel.

The final costs award was fixed at $19,000.

This decision addresses a high-conflict parenting dispute between H.S. (mother) and D.N. (father) involving two children.

The court considers whether to implement the recommendations of a section 30 assessment report pending trial, including supervised parenting time for the father and decision-making authority for the mother.

The court finds compelling circumstances to intervene prior to trial, citing ongoing parental conflict, emotional harm to the children, non-compliance with court orders, and gaps in evidence caused by the father's lack of cooperation.

The court orders supervised parenting time for the father, grants the mother decision-making authority, and sets out steps to address outstanding assessment and disclosure issues to ensure trial readiness.

The applicant, Lily Ror, sought to be removed as a director of Rovimat Group Inc. effective August 11, 2019, under the oppression remedy provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The court found that the conduct of the respondent, Rolando Pires, in dissolving and reviving the corporation without her knowledge, diluting her shareholding, and exposing her to personal liability, amounted to unfair prejudice and disregard of her interests as a director.

The court ordered her removal as director effective the requested date and awarded her costs.

The appellant mother appealed the dismissal of her application for parenting orders, retroactive and ongoing child support, and s. 7 expenses under the Family Law Act.

The motion judge had dismissed the application due to an existing divorce judgment from Michigan that already contained parenting and child support orders.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's application of legal principles or exercise of discretion, noting that there was little else in dispute beyond child support.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking temporary orders for sole decision-making authority regarding the children's education, increased child and spousal support, and production of text messages between the respondent father and her ex-boyfriend.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding that the proposed private school enrollment was not in the child's best interests, the existing voluntary support payments were adequate, and the requested text messages were irrelevant to the proceedings.

The respondent father brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant mother's claims for retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses.

The mother had commenced an application in Ontario seeking to vary a Michigan Consent Judgment of Divorce that included child support provisions.

The father argued that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction, asserting that the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act (ISOA) was the exclusive mechanism for varying a foreign support order from a reciprocating jurisdiction.

The court found that the child support provisions in the foreign divorce could not be varied or replaced by a provincial order in Ontario, as the case did not fall within the narrow exceptions to the general rule that ISOA is the proper route.

The court dismissed the mother's child support claims, concluding there was no genuine issue for trial regarding jurisdiction.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of both an appeal and a cross-appeal.

The respondent sought $38,580 in costs for the appeal, while the appellant proposed $7,500.

The court, considering the issues raised and the limited resources of the parties, awarded the respondent $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant sought to overturn a trial decision regarding spousal support quantum and duration, arguing the trial judge erred by deviating from the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs) and double-counting her new partner's contributions.

The respondent cross-appealed the trial judge's costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal.

The court affirmed the trial judge's discretion in determining spousal support, noting that SSAGs are advisory and re-partnering is a valid reason for deviation.

It also upheld the costs award, reiterating the high standard for appellate intervention in discretionary costs decisions.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion regarding a weekday access-exchange location.

Both parties filed extensive materials that significantly exceeded the limits set by the Chief's Notice and a prior judicial direction, which the court deemed disproportionate and an abuse of process.

The court refused to hear the motion as constructed and ordered the parties to re-file their evidence, strictly limited to ten pages for affidavit and exhibits, with a three-page limit for reply material.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for a case conference to address access facilitation after his previously proposed facilitator, his sister, tested positive for COVID-19 and required quarantine.

The respondent mother disputed the urgency, arguing the father acted hastily and failed to propose alternative facilitators.

The court, applying principles from Balbontin v. Luwawa and Ribeiro v. Wright regarding COVID-19 and parenting, found the matter urgent.

The father's motion was granted, and an urgent case conference was scheduled to address access facilitation, with specific directions for the parties' submissions.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for a case conference to increase access time for his child and to change the access exchange facilitator.

The respondent mother disputed the urgency of the request, citing the Chief Justice's Notice regarding COVID-19 court operations.

The court applied the urgency criteria from the Chief's Notice and Thomas v. Wohleber, finding that the father's concerns were not immediate, serious, or material, and that the request for expanded parenting time was premature given an ongoing OCL investigation.

The motion was dismissed, and the father was ordered to pay costs to the mother.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion concerning access, but his supporting affidavit grossly exceeded the four-page limit stipulated by the April 17, 2020 (amended) CER Notice to the Profession.

Due to this non-compliance with the practice direction, the court denied the urgent case conference request without prejudice, allowing the applicant to renew the request upon compliance.

The parties, married for 25 years and separated for 12, sought a final determination on spousal support.

The Applicant, a full-time homemaker during the marriage, sought indefinite spousal support and a lump sum for post-separation debts.

The Respondent, a civil engineer, argued for termination or reduction of support, citing the Applicant's lengthy cohabitation with a new partner of substantial wealth and his own significant contributions to child and home care during the marriage.

The court found the Applicant entitled to both need-based and compensatory spousal support, acknowledging her economic detriment and health issues.

However, the court also recognized the impact of her re-partnering on the quantum and duration of support.

The court adjusted the Respondent's income for support purposes, including personal expenses paid by his corporation, but declined to attribute corporate pre-tax income.

Spousal support was awarded for a time-limited period, decreasing over time, and a lump sum was granted to the Applicant for specific post-separation debts.

This decision addresses costs following two motions concerning matrimonial property and spousal support.

The court had ordered the applicant to purchase the matrimonial property and increased spousal support, though not to the extent sought by the applicant.

The respondent was granted leave to sell two properties.

The court found success to be mixed, with the applicant slightly more successful, and attributed greater fault for the delay in selling the matrimonial home to the respondent.

However, no bad faith was found on either side, and the applicant did not achieve a result more favourable than her offer to settle.

The respondent was ordered to pay fixed costs of $10,000 to the applicant.

The court heard two motions concerning the sale of the former matrimonial residence and adjustments to spousal support.

The respondent also sought to sell a jointly held Florida property and two Ontario properties.

The court found the respondent primarily at fault for the delay in selling the matrimonial home and ordered the applicant to purchase the respondent's interest in it under specific terms.

Interim spousal support was varied, with the respondent's income assessed at $200,000 and the applicant's at $20,000, resulting in a monthly payment of $3,675.

The non-depletion order was varied to permit the respondent to sell other properties, subject to conditions preventing asset dissipation.

The court declined jurisdiction over the sale of the Florida property and ordered the applicant to provide an accounting of chattels sold.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions and cross-motions in a family law dispute following a 2014 separation.

The court dismissed the Applicant's requests for an adjournment, a voice of the child report, a preservation order against the Respondent's assets, and further disclosure.

It also dismissed the Respondent's request for a further parenting assessment.

The court granted the Applicant's motion to increase temporary child support to $9,277 per month and temporary spousal support to $8,500 per month, based on the Respondent's averaged income of $750,000.

Retroactive support was left for trial.

A support deduction order was issued, and all other relief sought was dismissed.

The Respondent moved for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home to facilitate its sale, offering a $600,000 equalization advance and an increase in temporary spousal support.

The Applicant resisted, citing the children's best interests and difficulty finding alternative accommodation.

The court granted the Respondent's motion, finding that the delay was not due to the Respondent's disclosure issues, that moving was inevitable for the children, and that the Applicant would be able to find suitable housing with the provided funds and support.

This is a costs endorsement following motions heard on September 24, 2018.

Both the applicant and the respondent requested their costs, each claiming to be the more reasonable and successful party.

The court found that neither party could truly claim success, as six issues were addressed in the prior decision with success being divided.

The court discouraged the practice of dissecting each issue to determine reasonableness for costs.

Given the mixed success, the court ordered no costs to either party.

This decision addresses interlocutory motions concerning spousal support, property re-mortgaging, interim disbursements for business valuation, health benefits, property access, and asset dissipation.

The court dismissed the applicant's request to clarify a spousal support order, finding no material change in circumstances from mortgage renegotiation.

It ordered the applicant to sign re-mortgaging documents.

The court granted the applicant's request for $56,500 in interim disbursements for a business valuation and ordered the respondent to reinstate health coverage and reimburse expenses.

The respondent was permitted to attend the jointly owned property under specific conditions, but his request for a further exception to a non-dissipation order for living expenses was denied, as he could draw a salary from his corporations.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion to change custody and access arrangements.

The mother was completely successful in obtaining sole custody of two children, with the father receiving limited supervised access and the paternal grandparents prohibited from direct contact with the children.

The father had sought sole decision-making authority over educational matters, while the mother cross-moved for sole custody.

The court awarded costs to the mother against both the father and paternal grandparents in the amount of $150,000, finding the mother's conduct reasonable throughout the proceedings and the father and paternal grandparents' conduct unreasonable, including making false allegations and coaching the children.