3 total
Court orders children to attend private school over public French immersion in their best interests.
The separated parents disagreed on which school their two young sons should attend.
The mother wanted them to attend a local public school offering early French immersion, while the father wanted them to attend a private school founded by his mother.
The court applied the best interests of the child test, considering factors such as class size, individual attention, continuity, and the children's specific needs.
The court ordered that both children attend the private school, noting the smaller class sizes and the father's parents' offer to pay tuition.
Successful non‑party solicitors awarded partial indemnity costs after resisting joinder motion.
Following the dismissal of a motion seeking to add two former solicitors as defendants in a professional negligence action, the non-party solicitors sought costs.
The court confirmed that the solicitors had successfully resisted the motion and were entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.
In assessing costs under Rule 57, the court considered the importance of the issues, the significant damages claimed, extensive cross‑examinations, documentary record, and preparation required due to late abandonment of certain claims.
A moderate downward adjustment was applied to the hours claimed.
The court fixed reasonable costs payable by the plaintiffs to each solicitor.
Amendment denied where proposed solicitor defendants faced statute‑barred professional negligence claims.
The plaintiff moved to amend a statement of claim in a professional negligence action to add two former solicitors as defendants for allegedly failing to commence a commercial fire loss action within the applicable limitation period.
The proposed defendants opposed the amendment, arguing there was no evidence of retainer in one case and that the claims were statute‑barred.
The court held that the evidence demonstrated one solicitor had not been retained to pursue the fire loss claim and therefore there was no basis to add him as a defendant.
With respect to the second solicitor, the court concluded that the plaintiff was aware of the missed limitation issue when his subsequent counsel assumed carriage of the file, triggering the two‑year limitation period for a negligence claim.
As the motion to add that solicitor was brought after the limitation period expired, the amendment was refused.
