John P.L. McDermot

Following a successful motion regarding a child’s temporary school placement, the applicant sought costs relying on an offer to settle that proposed a final determination of the schooling issue.

The court held that costs generally follow the event under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules and that the applicant was the successful party.

However, the result of the motion was only a temporary order and therefore did not exceed the terms of the applicant’s offer to settle, which contemplated a final order.

As a result, the mandatory full indemnity cost consequences under Rule 18(14) were not triggered.

Taking the offer into account under Rule 18(16), the court awarded costs slightly above partial recovery.

The child protection agency sought summary judgment for Crown wardship without access for two children who had been in care for extended periods.

The mother had a history of substance abuse and abusive relationships but had made significant progress following residential treatment, including maintaining sobriety, stable housing, and consistent access visits.

The agency argued that a relapse and contact with a prohibited partner justified Crown wardship without trial.

The court held that the single relapse did not make Crown wardship a foregone conclusion and that insufficient evidence was provided regarding the children's best interests and adoption planning.

Summary judgment was dismissed and the matter directed to a limited trial on the mother’s capacity to safely parent under supervision and related access issues.

On a temporary motion in a parenting dispute, the moving party sought an order enrolling the parties’ child in a French immersion program rather than a Catholic school following a change in school boundaries.

The responding party argued the matter should be adjourned pending completion of a s. 30 assessment and that the child should remain within the separate school system as the status quo.

The court held the situation was not a traditional change-of-school case because the child would inevitably attend a new school due to boundary changes.

Applying the best interests test under the Children’s Law Reform Act and the Divorce Act, the court concluded that placement in the French immersion program was less disruptive and preserved the child’s opportunity to enter the program at the appropriate grade level.

Following a trial regarding rectification of a divorce judgment, the court addressed costs.

The applicant successfully obtained rectification of the divorce judgment under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to reflect the parties’ intention that a $100,000 payment be made, while the respondent achieved partial success by obtaining certain credits against that amount.

The court found the applicant had succeeded on the dominant issue but noted the legal question concerning the scope of Rule 25(19) was novel and that some of the litigation arose due to solicitor negligence.

Balancing these considerations, and finding no unreasonable conduct by the respondent within Rule 24(11), the court reduced the costs award.

Nominal costs were awarded to reflect divided success and the unusual circumstances of the case.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim joint and shared custody of the parties' three children, one of whom has special needs.

The respondent mother sought to maintain the status quo of primary residence with her.

The court found that the parties lacked the necessary communication for joint custody and that the father had not presented compelling circumstances to change the status quo on a temporary basis.

The court ordered that the children remain in the mother's primary care with expanded access for the father, and set interim child support and section 7 expenses.

Following a seven-day custody and child support trial where the applicant father was awarded sole custody, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought full recovery costs based on his successful offers to settle and the respondent mother's unreasonable conduct.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith by making unfounded reports to the Children's Aid Society, breaching court orders, and deceiving the court, which made the trial inevitable.

The applicant was awarded full recovery costs of $95,364.90, payable forthwith.

Following a ten-day trial primarily concerning child custody and a mobility application, the applicant father was largely successful and sought full indemnity costs of over $212,000.

The respondent mother argued for reduced costs based on divided success, her reasonable conduct, and her impecuniosity.

The court found that neither party's offer to settle triggered full indemnity costs and that the mother's conduct was not unreasonable.

The court declined to apportion costs for divided success or reduce them for impecuniosity, ultimately awarding the applicant $106,765.86 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought rectification of a 2006 divorce order that omitted agreed corollary relief, including $100,000 in support arrears and ongoing support, after solicitor error resulted in a divorce simpliciter.

Following a trial directed on the factual dispute, the court found a sufficient common intention between the parties to support rectification and held that Rule 25(19)(b) permits amendment where an order contains a mistake arising from inadvertent omission.

The court rejected arguments based on solicitor negligence, delay, laches, and res judicata, finding no prejudice sufficient to bar equitable relief.

After crediting specified payments made since the order, the court fixed remaining support arrears at $51,392.11.

Following a last-minute trial adjournment attributed to the respondent, the applicant sought costs thrown away of over $125,000.

The court reviewed the dockets to determine which trial preparation costs were genuinely wasted and would need to be redone.

The court excluded costs related to prior motions and disclosure that remained useful.

Costs thrown away were fixed at $18,000 on a substantial recovery basis, plus $2,000 for the adjournment motion, and $6,780 for disbursements and HST, for a total of $29,040 payable forthwith.

The applicant father sought sole custody of the parties' three-year-old child following a high-conflict separation.

The respondent mother, who had primary care since separation, repeatedly denied access, made unfounded complaints to child protection authorities, and engaged in alienating behaviour.

The court rejected a joint custody or parallel parenting arrangement due to the parents' complete inability to communicate.

Finding that the mother would continue to marginalize the father if she retained primary residence, the court awarded sole custody and primary residence to the father, with generous time-sharing to the mother.

The court also imputed income of $60,000 to both parties for child support purposes due to the father's unreasonable business deductions and the mother's failure to provide financial disclosure.

The defendant mortgagor brought a motion to set aside a default judgment and stay a writ of possession, while the plaintiff mortgagee brought a cross-motion to determine the amount due under the mortgage following the sale of the property.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the default judgment due to lack of evidence and delay.

The court determined the outstanding mortgage amount, including interest, penalties, and fees, finding that the defendant's failure to close an earlier sale was not solely attributable to an inaccurate discharge statement provided by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was awarded the outstanding mortgage balance and costs on a full indemnity basis.

Following a motion and counter-motion where the applicant was largely successful in obtaining support and dismissing a contempt motion, both parties sought costs.

The respondent sought full recovery costs alleging bad faith by the applicant for breaching a court order.

The court found no bad faith or malice, noting both parties exhibited some unreasonable conduct.

As the largely successful party, the applicant was awarded costs on a partial recovery basis fixed at $6,000, as no formal offers to settle were made.

In a high-conflict family proceeding, the applicant sought summary judgment dismissing the respondent’s sole custody claim, stays of custody and support issues in favour of secondary arbitration, and an order setting aside an earlier medical decision-making order.

The court held that summary judgment was unavailable because there were material factual disputes, credibility issues, and evidence of post-award developments bearing on custody.

The custody arbitration stay was refused because the relevant clause excluded custody and mobility, and in any event arbitration would not serve the children’s best interests given entrenched parental conflict and the ongoing involvement of counsel for the children.

The support arbitration stay was also refused because the applicant had effectively attorned to the court process and a separate arbitration would create an unjust multiplicity of proceedings.

The respondent’s medical-records disclosure motion was dismissed as overreaching and unsupported by a sufficient evidentiary foundation.

In this family law trial supplement, the court determined the remaining issue of ongoing child support payable by the respondent after custody and mobility issues had already been decided.

The court fixed the respondent’s pre-leave employment income at $62,000, but reduced support during an anticipated maternity and parental leave by taking judicial notice of EI benefits and setting income at $25,067.31.

The court rejected the applicant’s argument that income should be imputed during the paid leave under s. 19(1)(a) of the Child Support Guidelines, holding that the leave was reasonably required for the care of a child under the age of majority.

Because post-trial circumstances had changed but could not be proved on the agreed record, the court ordered temporary support at $214 per month and gave the respondent 60 days to bring a motion to change.

Following a two‑day family law trial dealing primarily with retroactive and ongoing spousal and child support and income imputation, the court addressed costs.

The court reviewed the parties’ competing offers to settle under the Family Law Rules and determined that the respondent at trial had been largely successful because her offers were closer to the ultimate support outcome and she sought spousal support where the other party had offered none.

Allegations of unreasonable conduct were raised by both sides but the court found neither party’s conduct sufficient to disentitle costs.

In assessing quantum, the court excluded costs for conferences where costs were not reserved and reduced excessive preparation time claimed for trial.

Partial recovery costs of $18,000 were awarded.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration of unjust enrichment and a constructive trust against properties owned by the defendants, after $750,000 was fraudulently obtained by one defendant and deposited into the corporate account of another.

The court considered whether the recipient defendant's knowledge of the fraud was relevant to the unjust enrichment claim.

The court held that while the plaintiff does not have to prove knowledge, the defendant's lack of knowledge is relevant evidence for the defence of juristic reason.

A mini-trial was ordered to determine the defendant's knowledge and whether a juristic reason existed.

The accused was charged with possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking.

Following an anonymous tip and police surveillance, the accused was arrested without a warrant and his vehicle was searched, yielding cocaine and marijuana.

A subsequent search warrant for his residence yielded further drugs.

The accused brought a Charter application arguing his s. 9 rights were violated as police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest.

The court found the anonymous tip was unreliable and the observed meetings were neutral, failing to establish objective reasonable grounds.

The court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, which also invalidated the subsequent search warrant.

Following a marriage breakdown involving a self‑employed lawn irrigation contractor, the court addressed disputed income, child support, spousal support, and a parenting travel request.

The parties accused each other of manipulating or concealing income during and after the marriage.

The court found deficiencies in financial disclosure and applied the Child Support Guidelines to impute income to both parties, rejecting some claimed business deductions and attributing additional income including cash components.

Support obligations were recalculated retroactively and prospectively, with arrears fixed and ongoing differential child and spousal support ordered.

The court also permitted the child to travel unaccompanied to Poland for a month to visit the applicant’s family, finding the trip in the child’s best interests.

Following a motion to vary support arising from a change in a child’s residence, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party had served a formal offer to settle under the Family Law Rules that was more favourable to the responding party than the result obtained at the motion.

Applying Rules 18(14) and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that the moving party was the successful party and was presumptively entitled to costs, including full indemnity costs from the date of the formal offer.

The court rejected arguments that the offer was ambiguous and found no unreasonable conduct by either party that would justify departing from the usual costs consequences.

Total costs of $10,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST were awarded, payable partly by set‑off against funds owing under the parties’ separation agreement.

A children’s aid society brought a summary judgment motion seeking findings that three children were in need of protection and requesting Crown wardship without access.

The evidence included parental drug use, repeated domestic violence, criminal involvement, neglect of medical and dental needs, inappropriate discipline, lack of supervision, unstable housing, and failure to cooperate with services.

The parents filed no responding material and failed to meaningfully participate in the proceedings.

Applying Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, the court found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and concluded the children were in need of protection under multiple provisions of the Child and Family Services Act.

Crown wardship without access was ordered to permit permanency planning.