3 total
The successful respondent was awarded $85,000 in partial indemnity costs after the court deducted expenses for unrelated prior proceedings and rejected a pre-application proposal as a Rule 49 offer.
This decision addresses the costs of an application where the Town of Cobalt sought a finding that its aggregate extraction use was permitted under a zoning by-law, which was ultimately dismissed.
The Township of Coleman, as the successful respondent, sought full indemnity costs.
The court determined that costs should be awarded on a partial indemnity basis, deducting expenses unrelated to the Superior Court application and ruling that a prior proposal by the respondent did not qualify as a Rule 49 offer to settle.
The Town of Cobalt was ordered to pay $85,000.00 in costs to the Township of Coleman.
Application for declaration of legal non-conforming use for large-scale aggregate extraction dismissed as difference in kind.
The applicant municipality sought a declaration that its use of a property for commercial aggregate extraction was permitted under the applicable zoning by-law or, alternatively, was a legal non-conforming use.
The property had previously been used as a municipal park, with only small-scale, incidental extraction for municipal purposes.
The court found that the current large-scale commercial extraction was a difference in kind, not merely an intensification of the pre-existing use.
Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the extraction was deemed not to be a permitted use.
Child support Case allowed
The respondent brought a motion to change a 2009 final order regarding custody, access, and support for his youngest child, Abbey, due to alleged parental alienation by the applicant.
The court found a material change in circumstances, including the applicant's failure to comply with the order and her alienating behaviour.
Expert evidence confirmed severe parental alienation.
The court granted the respondent sole custody of Abbey, terminated the applicant's access except for therapeutic purposes, and reduced the applicant's spousal support, citing her lack of effort towards self-sufficiency and the need to protect Abbey's best interests.