Kevin Power

In this urgent family law motion, the applicant sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home located in Toronto.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking exclusive possession with the children residing with him on a week-about parenting schedule.

The court granted the applicant's motion for exclusive possession on an interim basis, finding that the applicant, as the primary caregiver throughout the marriage with no current income, was in a more vulnerable position than the respondent, who had greater financial resources and could obtain alternative accommodation.

The court also imposed an interim parenting schedule providing the respondent with access every two out of three weekends plus weeknight parenting time, finding that the children's best interests required maintaining their relationship with their father despite the separation.

Following a five-day family law trial with divided success, the respondent sought costs.

The court found the respondent was considerably more successful, having prevailed on parenting, equalization, and property issues, while the applicant succeeded in obtaining spousal support.

Applying the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, and considering the applicant's financial circumstances, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent $15,000 in costs.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $35,000.

The defendant argued for proportionality and costs on the Small Claims Court scale, asserting the plaintiff did not achieve a more favourable result than their settlement offers.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments, finding that the plaintiff's judgment was indeed more favourable than their settlement offers.

The court also dismissed the proportionality argument, emphasizing that a just result is paramount and that the defendant's "hardball litigation" tactics contributed to the costs.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, a 72-year-old security guard, was terminated after 12 years of service.

The employer provided a letter stating employment would end in a few months but gave no firm date, and the plaintiff continued working for seven months before being abruptly fired without statutory entitlements.

The plaintiff mitigated his damages by finding new employment and brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court found the initial notice was insufficient as it lacked a firm date and the employment continued beyond the 13-week regulatory period.

The court awarded damages for breach of contract and additional damages for mental distress due to the employer's unfair conduct.

The plaintiff subcontractor moved for summary judgment for unpaid contract and extra work totaling $131,919.97 under a construction contract.

The defendant contractor asserted deficiencies and attempted to rely on claims arising from a separate construction project to assert set-off.

The court found the plaintiff’s claim was fully proven and largely undisputed, except for a limited deficiency claim forming part of a counterclaim.

The court held that statutory set-off under s. 17(3) of the Construction Lien Act did not apply because the separate project involved different parties and lacked contractual privity, and equitable set-off was also unavailable due to insufficient connection between the projects.

Summary judgment was granted for the plaintiff with enforcement partially stayed pending trial of the lien claim and reduced counterclaim.