Jonathan M. Richardson

This decision addresses the costs following a thirteen-day trial primarily focused on parenting arrangements, child support, spousal support, and the disposition of embryos.

The applicant father sought full indemnity costs, alleging the respondent mother's bad faith and unreasonable behaviour, and relying on his successful offers to settle.

The mother opposed full indemnity, citing her good faith efforts, financial hardship, and potential re-opening of a prior financial settlement.

The court found the father was the successful party and the mother's behaviour was unreasonable, though not necessarily bad faith.

The court also determined it lacked jurisdiction to order costs payable by pension transfer unless related to property division.

Balancing the father's entitlement with the parties' financial means and the children's best interests, the court ordered the mother to pay costs, providing three payment options.

This is Part II of a trial decision addressing ongoing child and spousal support, and the future of frozen embryos.

The court declined jurisdiction over the frozen embryos located in Massachusetts.

On spousal support, the court found no entitlement for the mother, imputing her income to a full-time equivalent, as her reduced work schedule was not justified by the children's needs or her health.

The court also determined child support obligations based on the parties' imputed incomes and shared parenting arrangements, including proportionate sharing of special and extraordinary expenses.

A divorce was granted.

In a high-conflict family law trial, the court determined the appropriate parenting schedule and decision-making responsibility for three children.

The mother made numerous allegations of family violence, sexual assault, and child abuse against the father, all of which were investigated by police and child protection services and found to be unsubstantiated.

The court found the mother's evidence lacked credibility and that she had engaged in a pattern of alienating behaviour, supported by the maternal grandparents, to unjustifiably restrict the father's parenting time.

The court ordered equal parenting time for the two younger children and a stepped-up reunification schedule for the eldest child, granting the father sole decision-making responsibility over the reunification therapy process.

This is a costs decision following an 8-day trial in a family law proceeding that addressed parenting, relocation, decision-making, spousal support, and child support.

The court applied the principles of costs, including partial indemnification, settlement encouragement, and discouraging inappropriate behaviour, as well as the factors under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules.

Success was divided: the applicant succeeded on parenting and relocation issues, while the respondent succeeded on financial issues, specifically regarding the applicant's attempt to cap the respondent's income.

Neither party's offer to settle met the criteria for full recovery of costs under Rule 18(14).

The court found the parties' positions not unreasonable or in bad faith.

The applicant was awarded partial costs of $30,000 due to their relative success on the parenting and relocation issues, which consumed a significant portion of the trial time.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for financial disclosure.

The applicant, Barbara Cohen, sought extensive financial disclosure from the Estate of Sidney Cohen and other parties, which the court found to be an attempt to circumvent a prior bifurcation order by Justice Audet.

The court dismissed the disclosure motion and subsequently awarded costs to the successful respondents and non-parties, including the Estate, Susan Charendoff, Brian Cohen, and several corporate non-parties.

The decision addresses the principles of costs, including partial indemnification, encouraging settlement, discouraging inappropriate behavior, and ensuring justice, while considering the reasonableness and proportionality of the requested amounts.

The court held a voir dire to determine the testimonial capacity of the applicant, Barbara Cohen, who suffers from mild dementia.

The respondents argued she had capacity, while her counsel argued she lacked it.

Based on expert reports from two geriatric specialists (Dr. Joel Sadavoy and Dr. Richard Shulman) and the court's own questioning of Barbara, the court found that the applicant lacked the capacity to testify due to inconsistent memory, difficulty communicating complex ideas, and potential for increased anxiety under cross-examination.

The court ruled that her previous questioning transcripts would be filed instead of compelling her live testimony.

The appellant father sought decision-making authority for the COVID-19 vaccination of his two youngest children.

The motion judge dismissed his application, relying on the mother's internet sources and the children's stated wishes, while dismissing public health information and making inappropriate historical comparisons.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by improperly admitting and weighing the mother's unreliable online evidence as expert testimony, failing to properly assess the father's public health evidence, giving undue weight to the children's influenced views, and incorrectly reversing the onus of proof.

The appeal was allowed, granting the father sole decision-making authority for the children's COVID-19 vaccination.

Following a motion determining the child's habitual residence to be Nigeria, the successful respondent mother sought costs on a full recovery basis, including legal fees and living expenses incurred while remaining in Ontario.

The court found the applicant father's conduct unreasonable but not amounting to bad faith.

The court awarded the mother $30,000 in costs, noting the father had already paid $11,200 in interim support which covered a large portion of the mother's living expenses.

This was a trial addressing various family law issues following the separation of the parties, including parenting arrangements, child relocation, decision-making authority, child support, and spousal support.

The court denied the respondent's request to relocate the child from Ottawa to Sarnia, finding it not to be in the child's best interests due to the significant disruption and impact on the child's relationship with the applicant and paternal extended family.

The existing shared parenting time schedule was largely maintained.

Decision-making responsibility was ordered to be joint.

For support, the court determined that spousal support was payable indefinitely on both compensatory and non-compensatory bases, with the quantum calculated at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range, and including the applicant's post-separation income increases.

Income was imputed to the respondent at $35,000 annually from 2022.

Child support was ordered based on a set-off of the parties' respective incomes, with no ceiling applied.

An agreed-upon equalization payment was confirmed, and the matrimonial home was ordered to be sold.

The applicant mother brought a motion for a temporary order regarding the children's schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic, seeking an order that they attend in person.

The respondent father opposed, arguing for online learning due to his alleged immunocompromised status.

The court found the father failed to provide medical evidence of an unacceptable risk to his health.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court ordered the children to attend school in person when it resumes.

The court declined to order the use of Our Family Wizard but imposed communication rules.

Following a successful motion by the respondent Estate to bifurcate the trial regarding the validity of a marriage contract, the Estate and the co-respondent sought costs.

The Estate claimed over $74,000 in partial indemnity costs, which the applicant argued was disproportionate.

The court agreed that the Estate's costs were excessive and disproportionate for a one-day motion, despite the high stakes and complexity.

The court fixed the Estate's costs at $35,000 and the co-respondent's costs at $2,500.

The respondent Estate brought a motion to bifurcate the proceeding, seeking a first trial on the validity of a Marriage Contract, separate from other issues including the applicant's claim to set aside the contract, elect equalization, and seek dependant relief.

The applicant opposed, arguing duplication of evidence and prejudice.

The court granted the bifurcation, finding it would lead to a more just, expeditious, and less expensive determination by potentially narrowing issues and promoting settlement, aligning with the culture shift emphasized in Hyrniak v. Mauldin.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment.

Four days prior to the return date, the defendant's counsel obtained an order removing themselves as lawyer of record.

The defendant's president attended the motion and requested an adjournment to retain new counsel.

The plaintiff opposed the adjournment, arguing prejudice regarding its construction lien priority.

The court granted a brief adjournment on strict peremptory terms, noting the recent amendment to Rule 15.04 requiring service of removal motions on all parties, and cautioned that parties may need to attend such motions to protect their interests.

The plaintiff, Daly Square Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment in a mortgage action seeking approximately $130,000 plus interest and possession of the mortgaged property, and dismissal of the defendants' counterclaim.

The defendants, 1786097 Ontario Inc. and Camille Mikhael, opposed, arguing for equitable set-off and that their $500,000 counterclaim for property damage was not statute-barred.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on both its claim and the defendants' counterclaim, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding equitable set-off and the limitation period for the counterclaim.

The court also ruled that the defendants were not entitled to legal set-off.

This endorsement addresses costs following a summary judgment motion where the respondent was largely successful in having the applicant's application dismissed and securing child support.

The court considered the parties' conduct, the applicant's unreasonable position, his failure to provide disclosure, and an informal offer to settle that was less favourable than the outcome.

While the applicant's conduct was not deemed bad faith, it was found unreasonable.

The respondent's costs were reduced due to an adjournment necessitated by her failure to provide income proof.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claims arising from his detention at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre.

The court struck the claims against Her Majesty the Queen because the plaintiff failed to provide the mandatory 60-day notice under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, rendering the action a nullity.

The claims against the superintendent were struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action in her personal capacity, and the Ministry and detention centre were struck as improper parties.

The plaintiff's cross-motion to consolidate two related actions was granted.

The plaintiff successfully brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement after the defendants resiled from it due to 'buyer's remorse'.

The plaintiff sought costs of the motion on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the defendants' conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding and the motion was entirely unnecessary but for their actions.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $21,260.74, representing full indemnity.

The parties brought competing motions seeking further documentary production in litigation concerning early termination of a commercial lease.

The landlord sought disclosure of the tenant’s corporate financial statements to assess claimed damages, while the tenant sought disclosure of the landlord’s rent rolls and leasing records to support its mitigation defence and counterclaim.

The court held that both categories of documents met the relevance test under the Rules of Civil Procedure notwithstanding commercial sensitivity.

Each party was ordered to produce the requested information, subject to the possibility of narrower agreement between counsel.

The court also directed the parties to update their discovery plan and consider involving accounting experts to streamline production and discovery.

The parties brought competing motions seeking further documentary production in litigation concerning early termination of a commercial lease.

The landlord sought disclosure of the tenant’s corporate financial statements to assess claimed damages, while the tenant sought disclosure of the landlord’s rent rolls and leasing records to support its mitigation defence and counterclaim.

The court held that both categories of documents met the relevance test under the Rules of Civil Procedure notwithstanding commercial sensitivity.

Each party was ordered to produce the requested information, subject to the possibility of narrower agreement between counsel.

The court also directed the parties to update their discovery plan and consider involving accounting experts to streamline production and discovery.

Following a motion concerning prospective and retroactive spousal support, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant had been awarded interim spousal support of $7,000 per month retroactive to April 1, 2012.

The respondent argued that a prior offer to settle was more favourable than the motion outcome and should affect costs under Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the offer was not more favourable because it involved a lower monthly support amount and delayed payment of arrears.

Costs of $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis were therefore awarded to the applicant under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules.