Juliet Mohammed

The appellants appealed a $1,000 costs award made by an Assessment Officer to the respondents following the discontinuance of an assessment action.

The appellants argued they were ambushed with a Bill of Costs at the hearing and that the respondents claimed costs for unrelated Small Claims Court attendances.

The Superior Court set aside the costs order, finding that the late service of the Bill of Costs and the inclusion of irrecoverable attendances resulted in a serious breach of procedural fairness and errors in principle.

The court declined to remit the matter for a rehearing, finding it would be an abuse of process.

The appellants appealed an Assessment Officer's $1,000 costs award to the respondents following the discontinuance of an assessment action.

The appellants had discontinued the assessment to pursue a breach of trust claim in Small Claims Court regarding a retainer.

The Superior Court set aside the costs award, finding serious procedural unfairness because the appellants were ambushed with a Bill of Costs at the hearing, the Notice of Appointment was served out of time, and the costs claimed improperly included Small Claims Court attendances.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment by the respondent.

During a mediation-adjudication session, the applicant presented a written offer to settle, which the respondent orally accepted.

The applicant later claimed there was no settlement, arguing he withdrew his offer, was under duress, and lacked medical capacity to understand the terms.

The Tribunal found that a binding settlement was reached, as the essential terms were agreed upon and the applicant intended to form a settlement.

The applicant failed to prove he withdrew the offer or that he was incapacitated or coerced.

The Application was dismissed as an abuse of process in light of the binding settlement.

This is a costs endorsement following a three-day family law trial in which the applicant (mother) was awarded sole custody of the parties' children with a defined access schedule, imputed income was attributed to the respondent (father), and he was ordered to pay ongoing child support and retroactive child support of $29,727.

The court awarded the mother's costs claim of $4,520.50, finding her to be the completely successful party and the father's conduct to be unreasonable due to incomplete and late financial disclosure and failure to disclose assets.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of five of the parties' eight children (ages 6-18), with access to the respondent father at her discretion, and child support retroactive to January 1, 2011, with the father's income imputed at $25,000 per annum.

The mother had assigned her child support claim to the City of Toronto.

The respondent father sought joint custody with free access and opposed any child support order.

The court found the father was not a credible witness, having failed to disclose properties, misrepresented his financial situation to obtain social assistance, and failed to comply with financial disclosure orders.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, structured access for the younger children on alternate Saturdays, and imputed the father's income at $25,000 per annum, ordering retroactive child support of $641 per month from January 1, 2012, with arrears of $29,727 payable forthwith to the City of Toronto.