James W. Sloan

Following a successful application for child support, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought recovery of legal costs after obtaining a child support order.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis and fixed them at $3,000 inclusive of disbursements.

The order directed that the costs be enforced through the Family Responsibility Office with monthly payments.

The applicants brought a motion at the outset of a scheduled trial seeking to strike the respondent’s allegations of fraud relating to a prior family law settlement and order.

The respondent alleged that the applicants intentionally failed to disclose income, assets, and bank accounts when the minutes of settlement were executed, thereby fraudulently inducing the settlement.

The court held that the issue of fraud had not previously been adjudicated and therefore cause of action estoppel did not apply.

The court further found that issues such as inducement, due diligence, alleged joint ventures, and inconsistencies in prior evidence required a full evidentiary record.

The motion was dismissed and the matter was directed to proceed to trial on the fraud allegations.

In a contested mobility and custody dispute, the applicant father opposed the respondent mother relocating the parties’ child from Ontario to British Columbia.

The court considered the child’s best interests under s. 24 of the Family Law Act and the principles from Gordon v Goertz.

Evidence addressed the child’s primary caregiving history, educational needs, family support networks, and the practical consequences of relocation.

Although the Office of the Children’s Lawyer recommended that the child remain in Ontario, the court found the mother had been the primary caregiver and was best positioned to support the child’s developmental and educational needs.

Custody was granted to the mother with permission for the child to reside with her in Victoria, British Columbia, along with provisions for child support and future arrangements for access.

In a personal injury action arising from a car–train collision, the plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 31.03(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking leave to examine a second representative of a railway defendant for discovery.

The defendant had already produced a signal inspector responsible for inspecting and maintaining the railway crossing involved in the collision.

The moving party argued that another representative, possibly a general manager, should be examined regarding decisions about upgrading signal equipment and crossing design.

The court held that the moving party had already conducted an extensive examination and had not sought undertakings to obtain further information.

It was not established that satisfactory answers could not be obtained from a single representative without undue expense and inconvenience.

The motion for leave to examine a second representative was therefore dismissed with costs.

A motion was brought under s. 19 of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 seeking authorization to administer antipsychotic and mood stabilizing medication to an involuntary psychiatric patient pending the disposition of an appeal from a Consent and Capacity Board decision.

The court accepted evidence that the patient was incapable of consenting to treatment and that several statutory criteria under s. 19(2) were satisfied.

However, the court was not persuaded that the patient's condition required immediate treatment before the appeal could be heard and determined, which was scheduled within several weeks.

Because the urgency requirement under s. 19(2)(d) was not met, the requested interim treatment authorization was refused.

Following a motion in which the defendants successfully sought to strike an affidavit sworn by a lawyer from the plaintiffs’ law firm, the court addressed the quantum of costs payable.

Although the defendants succeeded on grounds different from their primary argument, the court found they were nevertheless the successful party.

The court assessed reasonable preparation and attendance time for counsel and limited clerk time on a partial indemnity scale.

Costs were calculated using hourly rates for counsel and clerk time and applicable tax.

The court determined costs arising from four similar insurance motions brought by separate defendants in related actions.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $36,500.

The court found that a deduction was required because some counsel time related to unargued Charter applications rather than the motions themselves.

Applying the principles from Hunt v. TD Securities Inc., the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and instead reduced the requested amount by $8,000.

The plaintiffs were awarded $28,500 plus HST, payable equally among the defendants.

The plaintiffs, injured in motor vehicle accidents, applied for mediation through the Financial Services Commission of Ontario regarding entitlement to statutory accident benefits.

Mediation was not scheduled within 60 days of filing their applications, and the regulator refused to issue reports declaring mediation had failed, asserting the 60‑day period began only once a mediator was appointed.

The plaintiffs commenced court actions and the insurers moved to strike the claims for lack of jurisdiction.

The court held that Rule 19 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code imposes a mandatory requirement that mediation be concluded within 60 days of filing the mediation application.

Because that period had expired, mediation was deemed to have failed and the plaintiffs were not required to obtain a failed mediation report or pursue internal appeals or judicial review before commencing their actions.

The moving parties brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the action and requested that the responding parties’ affidavit evidence sworn by a law partner of counsel be struck.

The court considered whether it was proper for counsel to rely on an affidavit sworn by a partner in the same firm who had previously acted as lawyer of record.

Reviewing prior jurisprudence and professional conduct rules, the court held that certain portions of the affidavit contained improper hearsay, legal argument, and evidence that should have come from the client or documentary exhibits.

The court struck the improper portions and ultimately struck the affidavit in its entirety while granting leave to file new responding material.

The motion for summary judgment was not determined on the merits at this stage.

The court considered costs following a contentious matrimonial proceeding involving disputes over exclusive possession of the former matrimonial home and parenting time.

Both parties had taken entrenched positions throughout the litigation and had failed to meaningfully pursue mediation or negotiation.

The court found that responsibility for the litigation conduct was shared and that neither party achieved clear success on the principal issues before the court.

Given the divided success and mutual fault, the court declined to award costs to either party.

In a family law motion involving child support and corollary relief following the severance of divorce proceedings, the court was required to determine the applicant’s income for child support purposes.

The applicant’s financial disclosure and evidence regarding business income and deductions were found to be insufficient, including unexplained deductions and limited documentation supporting claimed expenses.

The court rejected certain deductions, including home office expenses, and considered lifestyle evidence such as foreign travel and deposits into a joint account.

Income was imputed to the applicant at $60,000 annually for the purposes of calculating child support for four children.

The court also addressed arrears, proportionate responsibility for section 7 expenses, and ordered ongoing financial disclosure.