Keith R. Millikin

The Applicant, Sara Zehra Salim, sought costs following a lengthy family law trial where she was largely successful on issues of custody, access, spousal support, and Mehr payment.

The court found the Respondent, Syed Adeel Safdar, acted in bad faith regarding domestic violence allegations, which significantly prolonged the litigation and increased the Applicant's legal expenses.

The court awarded Sara $300,000 in costs, with $25,000 to be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) as support-related expenses, considering the Respondent's financial difficulties and the need to preserve his ability to exercise supervised access.

The applicant, the common-law spouse of the deceased, sought a declaration of an equal interest in their shared home via constructive trust, and dependency support under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court granted the constructive trust claim, finding the applicant made significant financial contributions to the home's purchase and upkeep, establishing unjust enrichment.

However, the court dismissed the dependency support claim, ruling it was barred by the six-month limitation period and that the property had already vested in the respondent under the Estates Administration Act.

The applicant executor sought leave to appeal a motion judge's order requiring him to personally pay $11,190.82 in costs related to a motion for directions on the passing of estate accounts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the applicant failed to establish a conflicting decision under Rule 62.02(4)(a) or a matter of general or public importance under Rule 62.02(4)(b).

The costs award was based on the motion judge's assessment of the applicant's conduct and did not raise issues of access to justice.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a costs order made by Sloan J., which fixed costs at $11,190.82 payable personally by the applicant.

The original costs order arose from a motion for directions in an estate matter.

The court applied the strict two-part test for granting leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4), considering whether there was a conflicting decision on principle or if there was doubt about the order's correctness involving matters of general importance.

The court found no conflicting decision and determined that the costs award, while significant to the applicant, did not raise issues of public importance or access to justice.

Consequently, the motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The respondent was successful on a motion and sought costs.

The court noted a history of delay by the applicant and previous findings of contempt of court.

The court fixed costs at 70% of substantial indemnity, ordering the applicant to pay $11,190.82 personally, rather than out of the estate.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal regarding insurance coverage for stolen marijuana plants, the respondent insurer sought costs.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs, noting that while the respondent was entirely successful, the legal issues were novel and there was no guiding precedent.

Costs were fixed at $6,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, reflecting a modest allowance for junior counsel.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action against their homeowners' insurance provider for the theft of medical marijuana plants from their backyard.

The insurer had paid out a limited amount under the 'landscaping' extension but denied full coverage under the 'personal property' provision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that while the stolen plants became personal property upon being detached from the ground, they were not 'usual to the ownership or maintenance of a dwelling' as required by the policy.

The defendant insurer brought a Rule 21 motion seeking determination of a question of law regarding the interpretation of a homeowner’s insurance policy after thefts of medical marijuana plants grown by the insured.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment on liability and argued the plants were covered as personal property under the policy’s general contents coverage.

The court held that the specific policy provision addressing “trees, shrubs and plants” governed and limited recovery to $1,000 per plant.

The court rejected the argument that the plants fell under the broader contents provision and also found that the grow‑operation exclusion did not apply to the theft of the plants themselves.

As the insurer had already paid the maximum amount permitted under the policy, the plaintiffs’ additional claims were dismissed.

Costs were determined following three family law motions concerning financial disclosure in related proceedings involving a motion to change child support and an application by an adult child for support.

Two motions sought to strike pleadings for failure to comply with financial disclosure obligations, while a third sought disclosure from another party.

The court held that the responding parties had acted in bad faith by failing to comply with prior disclosure orders and by obstructing disclosure required under the Family Law Rules and the Child Support Guidelines.

Full indemnity costs were awarded to the moving parties for the motions to strike, while partial indemnity costs were awarded on the disclosure motion.

The court also ordered that the costs were on account of child support, enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office, and prohibited further motions by the offending parties until the costs were paid.

The defendants, who were successful at trial, brought a motion for security for costs of the plaintiff's appeal under Rule 61.06(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario and that there was good reason to believe the appeal was frivolous and vexatious, as the trial judge had made strong adverse credibility findings against the plaintiff and rejected his expert evidence.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay $10,000 into court as security for the defendants' costs of the appeal.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order permitting the respondent to relocate with the children to Hamilton.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding the move was a material change in circumstances, that it was not reasonably foreseeable, and that it was in the best interests of the children.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the law, made no palpable and overriding errors, and properly considered all factors regarding the children's best interests.