Justice P.E. Roger

The applicant brought an application seeking to manage the personal care of her elderly mother, challenging the validity of recent powers of attorney granted to the mother's husband and son.

The applicant alleged the mother lacked capacity and was subject to undue influence, and alternatively sought to be appointed guardian and requested ordered visits.

The court dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence of incapacity or undue influence to invalidate the powers of attorney.

The court also declined to appoint a guardian or order visits, noting the mother was not found incapable of personal care and the court's parens patriae jurisdiction was not warranted.

Following a three-week trial where the plaintiff's action for negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and defamation was dismissed, the successful defendants sought costs of over $523,000.

The defendants relied on an offer to settle for $100,000.

The court found that the defendants' fees were disproportionate and that the federal government had failed to meet its document production obligations, which unnecessarily lengthened the trial.

Balancing the defendants' success and offer to settle against their improper conduct regarding document disclosure, the court fixed costs at $100,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff sought damages of approximately $4.8 million for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the duty of good faith arising from a renewable energy contract.

The plaintiff acquired the secured debt of a company that had a contract with the defendant to build a biomass energy facility.

When the company filed for bankruptcy, the defendant treated the contract as automatically terminated pursuant to its terms, requiring the plaintiff to seek a new agreement.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the contract unambiguously provided for automatic termination upon bankruptcy, the defendant did not act in bad faith, and the plaintiff failed to mitigate its damages and prove an enforceable agreement for the sale of the contract.

The respondent father brought a motion to change, seeking to terminate child support for his 18-year-old daughter on the basis that she had rejected any relationship with him.

The court applied the Farden factors and found that the daughter's decision to terminate the relationship was not without justification, given the long and complex history of high conflict between the parents.

The court concluded the daughter remained a child of the marriage under the Divorce Act and was entitled to ongoing support for her university education.

However, the court found the standard Guidelines approach inappropriate under section 3(2)(b) and ordered specific monthly amounts and shared expenses, requiring the daughter to contribute to her own education costs.

Following a motion to consolidate 48 actions where the moving defendants were largely successful but the plaintiff successfully resisted consolidation of one action, the court determined costs.

Considering the divided success and a reasonable settlement offer made by the plaintiff, the court ordered the moving defendants to pay partial indemnity costs of $7,500 to the plaintiff and $5,522.91 to the successful co-defendant, Boston Pizza.