Jason Herbert

The plaintiffs and the defendant police officer provided written submissions on costs following the plaintiffs' successful motion for leave to amend their statement of claim.

The defendant argued the plaintiffs' submissions were late, but the court found them timely under the Rules of Civil Procedure as the deadline fell on a weekend.

Although the plaintiffs were successful on the motion, the court expressed concern over the timing of the new, more serious allegations of battery and sexual assault, which the defendant argued were an attempt to circumvent the Limitations Act.

Consequently, the court declined to award costs immediately to the successful plaintiffs, instead fixing costs at $6,500 payable in the cause.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court dealing with title to property at 90 Cotton Grass Street, Kitchener, Ontario.

The property was originally owned by Arthur Painter.

On December 16, 2015, a transfer was registered to Nathan Beaucage and Tracey Storr as joint tenants.

On November 28, 2017, a fraudulent transfer was registered purporting to transfer the property from Nathan and Tracey to Tracey and Arthur.

The application judge set aside the fraudulent 2017 transfer and vested title in Nathan and Tracey with corrected personal information.

The appellants argued the order went beyond addressing the fraudulent transfer and improperly determined issues relating to the validity of the 2015 transfer, which remained to be litigated.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, varying the order to simply declare the 2017 transfer void and direct its deletion from the register, while preserving the certificate of pending litigation and directing consolidation of the pending applications for trial.

The applicant father brought a motion to change child support and rescind arrears under a 2009 order.

He argued that support should be reduced because one child had left the respondent mother's care and that he should not have to pay section 7 expenses due to the mother's failure to provide receipts.

The court refused to reduce support for a temporary absence of the eldest child but adjusted the ongoing support to reflect that only one child remained eligible.

The court declined to impute additional income to the father beyond his Worker's Compensation benefits.

Arrears and ongoing support were recalculated based on the parties' respective incomes and proven section 7 expenses.