James Studer

The respondent mother brought a motion to compel the parties' 14-year-old children to attend in-person schooling.

The applicant father brought a cross-motion seeking an order that the children be permitted to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and that the mother provide their health cards.

The court found that in-person schooling and vaccination were in the children's best interests.

Applying the Health Care Consent Act and the mature minor doctrine, the court held that the children were capable of consenting to the vaccine without parental consent.

The court ordered the mother to provide the health cards and directed that the children attend in-person learning following their first vaccine.

The appellant was successful in an appeal from a Small Claims Court decision and sought costs of $17,185.79 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found no basis for substantial indemnity costs as there was no relevant offer to settle.

Applying the factors in Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the amount at issue ($10,000) and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party, the court found the requested amount unreasonable.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 all-inclusive.

The appellant financed repairs to the respondent's leased vehicle and registered a lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act.

When the respondent defaulted, the appellant seized the vehicle.

The Small Claims Court ordered the vehicle returned with damages, finding the seizure was not commercially reasonable under the Personal Property Security Act.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the trial judgment, holding that the trial judge applied the wrong statute, misinterpreted the contract, and awarded inappropriate damages without a solid evidentiary basis.

The appellant was granted liberty to sell the vehicle.