Jordan Earl Duplessis

Following settlement of two family law motions concerning parenting time and access to child-related information, the court determined whether a costs award should nevertheless be made.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that costs may appropriately follow settlement where success and unreasonable conduct can still be assessed.

The court found that the mother made early, consistent, and reasonable offers on the core parenting issue that closely matched the ultimate resolution, while the father achieved limited success on the information motion.

Balancing divided success, litigation conduct, the timing of offers, and deficiencies in the mother's bill of costs, the court ordered the father to pay the mother $6,000 inclusive.

The court considered an uncontested family law application by Joanne Polack for equalization of net family property and spousal support against Peter Denis Larabie.

The respondent’s answer was struck for failure to comply with disclosure orders, and the trial proceeded in his absence.

The court reviewed the parties’ long-term relationship, financial history, and the respondent’s repeated non-compliance with disclosure.

The court awarded the applicant lump sum spousal support, an equalization payment, and costs, with payment to be made from funds held in trust and, if necessary, from the respondent’s pension or LIRA.

The court also ordered further financial disclosure from the respondent and set out consequences for non-compliance.

The moving party sought costs against one of the respondents personally following a motion for directions regarding the appointment of an estate trustee.

The responding parties sought their costs from the moving party.

The court found that while the moving party was an inappropriate candidate for estate trustee, his application was necessary to advance the administration of the estate.

The court ordered the moving party's costs to be paid from the estate on a substantial indemnity basis.

The responding parties' costs were also ordered to be paid from the estate, but on a partial indemnity basis, as they failed to propose an alternate candidate.

The moving party, the separated spouse of the deceased, sought to be appointed as estate trustee.

The respondents, the deceased's son and common-law partner, objected to the appointment.

The court found that the moving party had an irreconcilable conflict of interest with the estate and its beneficiaries, as he was a defendant in potential family law and child support claims by the estate, and had failed to pay child support since the deceased's death.

The court denied the moving party's application and ordered that he be passed over as estate trustee.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding him $750 for a defective roof installation.

He argued the trial judge erred by allowing a representative of the shingle manufacturer to give opinion evidence without filing an expert report or being formally qualified as an expert.

The Divisional Court held that Small Claims Court judges have discretion under section 27 of the Courts of Justice Act to admit opinion evidence without a prior report.

However, the Court found the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error by discounting the witness's $2,000 repair estimate by 75%.

The appeal was allowed in part, and damages were increased to $2,250.

The respondent brought a motion for interim spousal support following a separation.

The court found that the financial information provided by both parties was outdated and insufficient to make a determination.

The motion was not decided, and the parties were ordered to provide updated financial statements, year-to-date earnings, and particulars regarding a live-in boyfriend's income and contributions for a further hearing.

The appellant, Smartech Installations, successfully appealed a trial judgment obtained by the respondent, Yvan Rolland Pilon, resulting in an order for a new trial.

The appellant sought partial indemnity costs for the appeal.

The court noted that the respondent had refused a substantial settlement offer during the appeal hearing.

Applying section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded the appellant partial indemnity costs fixed at $5,122.55.

The appellant, a contest sponsor, appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $25,000 for an uncollected radio contest prize.

The trial judge found a contract existed between the sponsor and the winner but provided no analysis to support this conclusion.

The Divisional Court held that the trial judge erred in law by failing to articulate a legal basis for finding a contract, which prevented meaningful appellate review.

The appeal was allowed, the trial decision was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.