J. Richard Forget

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.

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.

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 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.