John Joseph Christopher Cardill

The applicant sought an order for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home due to financial inability to maintain it and accumulated debt.

The respondent opposed the sale and brought a cross-motion for an order requiring the applicant to pay for an expert report to assess his pre-marriage assets.

The court granted the order for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, finding that the respondent's claim for exclusive possession did not raise a triable issue and that the sale was in the interest of both parties to satisfy debts and preserve equity.

The respondent's motion for interim disbursements for an expert report was dismissed, as the court was not convinced of a prima facie case of sufficient merit or necessity, especially since the applicant had already provided an expert report.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a master's costs order that directed no costs be awarded to either party following a motion in which the plaintiff had been substantially successful.

The court considered the standard for granting leave to appeal a costs order under s. 133(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, which requires strong grounds demonstrating that the lower court erred in principle or exercised discretion improperly.

The court emphasized that appellate courts are reluctant to interfere with discretionary costs decisions absent clear error.

The master had considered the conduct of the parties and explained why costs were not awarded despite the general rule that costs follow the event.

The court found no basis to conclude the master was plainly wrong or erred in principle and refused leave to appeal.

Following a prior motion decision, the court addressed written submissions on costs.

The applicant sought costs of both the motion and an earlier assessment before an Assessment Officer.

The court declined to determine the costs of the earlier assessment, holding that such submissions should have been made to the Assessment Officer who conducted the hearing.

Exercising discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and considering the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the applicant entitled to costs of the motion.

Partial indemnity costs of $7,992 plus HST and disbursements were awarded as fair, reasonable, and proportionate.

The respondent to an earlier application brought a motion to set aside a default judgment entered against him as guarantor on a promissory note.

The moving party argued the judgment should be set aside due to defective notice of the application, alleged representations by opposing counsel, and an asserted defence relating to inadequate legal advice regarding the guarantee.

The court accepted that the notice of application contained procedural defects and created confusion about whether the matter had already been decided.

However, the court held that the moving party failed to bring the motion promptly and demonstrated no viable defence on the merits.

Applying Rule 38.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and emphasizing the principles in Rule 1.04 regarding just and efficient determination of proceedings, the court declined to set aside the judgment.