Joseph Roger Richard Forget

The applicant father sought costs following his success on two temporary motions, which included successfully opposing the respondent mother's request to relocate the child.

The father claimed $15,102.45 based on offers to settle and the mother's unreasonable conduct.

The mother argued costs should be limited to $3,000, citing her receipt of legal aid and claiming the motions should have been short.

The court rejected the mother's arguments, noting that legal aid is not a shield against costs and that she failed to provide her own bill of costs.

Finding the father was the successful party and that the mother acted unreasonably, the court awarded the father costs of $10,000 all-inclusive.

The respondent mother brought a motion to temporarily relocate the parties' infant child from Kirkland Lake, Ontario to Rouyn, Québec.

The applicant father brought a cross-motion seeking primary residence, sole decision-making responsibility, and a non-removal order.

The court found that the mother failed to provide a compelling reason for temporary relocation and that her historical frustration of the father's relationship with the child raised concerns.

The court dismissed the mother's relocation request, granted the father primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility on a temporary basis, and ordered both parents to deposit their passports with the court to prevent the child's removal from the jurisdiction.

The mother and father separated after moving to Canada from Algeria.

The father subsequently returned to Algeria and remained there, failing to pay child support.

The mother sought sole authority over the children's government documents, permission to travel internationally without the father's consent, and child support based on imputed income.

The court granted the mother sole authority for Canadian documents and permitted her to travel to Hague Convention countries without consent.

The court imputed a minimum wage income to the father, finding him intentionally underemployed, and ordered him to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, as well as proportionate section 7 expenses.

The court awarded full indemnity costs against the plaintiffs after dismissing their claims, which were found to be statute-barred, subject to res judicata and issue estoppel, abuses of process, and collateral attacks.

The claims were deemed devoid of merit and repetitive of earlier unsuccessful actions.

The court emphasized that the claims should never have been brought, especially for a third time, and that the plaintiffs' conduct, including unsubstantiated allegations, delaying tactics, and unrealistic settlement offers, warranted the highest scale of costs.

The respondent mother brought a motion to adjourn the applicant father's application for the return of their two children, who she had wrongfully retained in Colombia.

The court considered the factors for granting an adjournment, emphasizing the best interests of the children and the need for timely resolution in international child abduction cases.

The court found that the respondent was manufacturing delay and dismissed the motion for adjournment, directing her counsel to proceed with the hearing.

A case conference was held to address the scheduling of several outstanding motions after the plaintiffs dismissed their counsel.

The court rescheduled the motions to the week of November 7, 2022, to be heard virtually.

The hearing of the motions was marked peremptory against the plaintiffs and their corporate entities, giving them time to retain new counsel without further delaying the proceedings.

The appellant landlord sought to recover unpaid rent and damages from former residential tenants in Small Claims Court.

The claim was dismissed by the Small Claims Court and upheld by the Divisional Court for lack of jurisdiction, on the basis that the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that under the relevant provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, the LTB's jurisdiction over such claims was contingent on the tenant being in possession of the rental unit.

Since the tenants had vacated, the LTB did not have jurisdiction, and the claims properly fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

A case conference was held to address multiple related actions.

On consent, the claims against Shahzad Siddiqui and Borden Ladner Gervais LLP were dismissed with prejudice and without costs.

The court directed counsel to confer regarding the potential release of individual defendants and established a timetable for scheduling upcoming dispositive motions.

A case conference was held to manage multiple related proceedings.

Counsel for the plaintiffs indicated a recommendation for the plaintiffs to agree to dismissals without costs in most cases, except potentially the claim against Grant Thornton LLP Canada, which requires leave to proceed.

The court directed that a new class action issued by one of the plaintiffs be case managed together with the existing matters.

Counsel were directed to advise on dismissals or agree on a timetable for dispositive motions by a specified date.

This is a costs endorsement following motions for temporary parenting and support (brought by the father) and contempt (brought by the mother).

The father sought $5,000 in costs, while the mother requested no costs.

The court found the father to be more successful overall, particularly on the dominant issues of child residency (for one child) and child support.

The mother's motion for contempt was dismissed as ill-advised, and her conduct regarding it and her refusal to pay child support for one child was deemed unreasonable.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, and considering the factors under the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the mother to pay the father $3,500 in costs.

The father brought a motion to temporarily change a parenting order and seek child support, while the mother brought a cross-motion for contempt.

The court found a material change in circumstances for the older child (A.-S., 15.5 years old), who had been living exclusively with the father and had a strained relationship with the mother.

The court ordered A.-S.'s primary residence to be with the father, with parenting time subject to A.-S.'s wishes.

The court dismissed the father's request to change the primary residence of the younger child (L.W., 9 years old), finding no compelling circumstances to alter the existing shared parenting arrangement.

The mother's contempt motion against the father was dismissed due to insufficient evidence and the court's preference for exploring alternatives to contempt.

The court ordered the mother to pay retroactive child support from August 1, 2020, and ongoing support based on the "economies of scale approach" for hybrid support cases, but denied the father's claim for special expenses for soccer due to lack of prior consent and insufficient evidence.

The appellant, an undischarged bankrupt, commenced an action against the respondent for damages for solicitor's negligence.

The motion judge struck out the claim for lack of legal capacity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that under s. 71 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, a bankrupt's property, including causes of action, vests in the trustee in bankruptcy, depriving the bankrupt of the capacity to initiate the action.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing an application on the basis that the limitation period had expired.

The appellant argued that the application judge should have dismissed the application on the alternative ground that the claim was improperly constituted as an application rather than an action.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was from the judgment, not the reasons, and dismissed the appeal.

Costs were fixed at $7,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

A costs decision following a trial on an application for access to a child.

The father sought access to his biological daughter, born in 2010, whom he had minimal contact with since 2014.

The mother opposed the access request and sought a restraining order.

The court dismissed both the father's access application and the mother's restraining order request.

This decision addresses the costs consequences of the trial, with the mother seeking $32,498.38 and the father seeking $17,736.95.

The court awarded costs to the mother as the substantially successful party, fixing costs at $15,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff unsuccessfully appealed a Master's order regarding an extension of time for serving a Statement of Claim under the Construction Lien Act.

The successful defendant sought costs of $5,382.42 on a partial indemnity basis, while the plaintiff argued for $1,581.15.

The court fixed costs at $3,500 all inclusive, payable to the defendant in any event of the cause, applying the principle that costs should reflect the fair and reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful litigant.

A father residing in Afghanistan sought an order for weekly Skype access to his seven-year-old daughter who lives in Canada with her mother, stepfather, and half-brother.

The father claimed he had a right to know his biological daughter.

The mother opposed the application, arguing that the child had no relationship with the father, believed the stepfather was her biological father, and that access would be harmful to the child's stability and wellbeing.

The court dismissed the father's application for access, finding that the child's best interests were served by maintaining her stable family environment and that the risks of introducing contact with a stranger far outweighed any potential benefits.

In a matrimonial dispute, the husband appealed the quantum of an equalization payment ordered by the trial judge, while the wife cross-appealed the quantum of child support.

The wife moved to dismiss the husband's appeal for non-payment of interim child and spousal support ordered by Lauwers J.A. The Court of Appeal found that the husband's failure to comply with the interim support order and his failure to pursue or perfect the appeal on a timely basis disentitled him from continuing with the appeal.

The court dismissed the husband's appeal with costs and correspondingly dismissed the wife's cross-appeal without costs.

The applicant mother sought an order to strike the respondent father's pleadings based on his non-compliance with disclosure orders and failure to pay temporary child support.

The father had been ordered to provide comprehensive financial disclosure by July 31, 2014, but failed to do so despite multiple adjournments and cost sanctions.

He also failed to pay any amount of the temporary support order of $1,849 monthly made on November 3, 2014.

The court found the father's non-compliance to be deliberate and willful, but granted one final opportunity to comply before striking pleadings, recognizing the importance of allowing participation in family law proceedings.

On a motion to quash, the court held it lacked jurisdiction over an appeal arising from a construction lien action in which the appellant's statement of defence and counterclaim had been struck and judgment was subsequently obtained.

The court treated the judgment below as a default judgment, for which the proper remedy was a motion to set aside rather than an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

It further held that any appeal from the master's final order striking the counterclaim lay to the Divisional Court under s. 19(1)(c) of the Courts of Justice Act, and that appeals from final orders in construction lien actions are statutorily directed to the Divisional Court under ss. 70 and 71 of the Construction Lien Act.

The appeal was struck and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The defendants, K-Tech Building Systems Inc. and its president Stanley Kondrotas, were charged with five offences under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 arising from their agreement with Bonnie Engel to construct a prefabricated cottage on her property.

The charges included making false, misleading or deceptive representations regarding material ordering and delivery, making an unconscionable representation, failing to provide a future performance agreement with prescribed requirements, and failing to refund payment within 15 days of cancellation notice.

The court found that the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 applied to the transaction despite arguments that the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act should govern.

The defendants were convicted on four of five counts after failing to establish the due diligence defence.

The court found that the defendants' failure to include a completion date in the agreement created a situation where the consumer had the right to cancel after 30 days, and the defendants failed to meet their obligations under consumer protection legislation.