Julie Richard-Gorman

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent Town discriminated against him on the basis of sex in its property tax collection efforts.

The applicant claimed the Town was more aggressive with him than it had been with his mother when she previously owned the property.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the difference in treatment was attributable to the mother's limited financial means and disability, rather than sex discrimination.

The Tribunal also considered the applicant's request to amend his application to include allegations of reprisal, finding that the alleged events either occurred before the applicant claimed his Code rights or lacked any reasonable basis to suggest reprisal.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

Following a consent order resolving the father's motion to change child support and access, both parties made written submissions on costs.

The mother sought full indemnity costs of $18,112.13, arguing the father delayed the resolution by failing to provide necessary financial disclosure.

The father sought costs of $12,500, noting he was successful in having his child support reduced for three years following a workplace accident.

The court found that the father's failure to provide timely financial disclosure unnecessarily delayed the proceedings.

The father was ordered to pay costs of $10,000 to the mother.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's appeal of a trial decision, the applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The respondent opposed full indemnity costs, citing limited financial means.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the principles of proportionality and reasonableness.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs in the amount of $11,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

On a family law appeal from an order varying custody, access, and support, the appellant mother challenged the trial judge’s reliance on evidence, findings of material change, treatment of a mediation clause, rejection of shared custody, and support determinations.

The court held that the mediation provision was not an absolute bar, could be waived, and in any event could be overridden in the child’s best interests.

It upheld the finding of multiple material changes in circumstances, including the child’s maturity, the parties’ ineffective communication, non-compliance with the earlier regime, and school absenteeism.

The court further found no reversible error in the treatment of the OCL report, the child’s views and preferences, the custody analysis, or the support order under the Child Support Guidelines.

The appeal was dismissed.

In an uncontested trial, the applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and an equalization payment.

The respondent father did not appear.

The court granted the applicant sole custody with supervised access for the respondent.

Based on evidence of the respondent's unreported cash earnings, the court imputed his income at $45,000 and ordered child support of $406 per month.

The court also ordered an equalization payment of $475 and costs of $1,000 to the applicant.