K. Hughes

This endorsement addresses a request for costs following two motions heard together.

The respondent, who was deemed the overall successful party on the motions (one motion dismissed for the applicant, one granted for the respondent), sought substantial indemnity costs.

However, the court exercised its broad discretion, considering the applicant's partial success on an earlier related motion and, significantly, the respondent's improper conduct (parental alienation) which motivated the applicant's motion.

The court found that the respondent's conduct should not be rewarded with costs and that her own motion for an accounting was not strictly necessary.

Consequently, the court ordered that both parties bear their own costs.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce a settlement allegedly reached between the parties following a settlement conference.

The court reviewed the correspondence and draft minutes of settlement exchanged between counsel.

The court found that the parties were not ad idem on an essential term, specifically the timing of the issuance of the divorce order relative to the transfer of the matrimonial home.

As a result, the court concluded that no binding settlement was reached and dismissed the motion, deeming the applicant's signed draft minutes as an offer to settle.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for a temporary parenting order prior to a Case Conference.

The parties, who separated in 2019, had competing proposals for parenting time that differed by only one overnight every two weeks.

The court emphasized the need to focus on the children's best interests rather than parental conflict, and ordered a temporary 2-2-3 rotating schedule providing equal time to both parents.

The Crown applied for certiorari to set aside a preliminary inquiry judge's decision to discharge two respondents, Justin McGregor and Herve Kalonji, on various drug trafficking and criminal organization charges.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, affirming the narrow scope of jurisdictional review for preliminary inquiry decisions.

The court reiterated that such decisions are reviewable only for jurisdictional errors (e.g., failing to consider all evidence, impermissible weighing), not for errors of law or sufficiency of evidence.

The judge found that the preliminary inquiry judge properly exercised her jurisdiction in concluding there was insufficient evidence for committal, despite some potential errors in her reasoning regarding the evidence.

This is a judicial interim release (bail) hearing for an accused charged with conspiracy to commit firearms trafficking as part of Project Sizzle.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused, a 30-year-old with a significant criminal history including multiple breaches of recognizance and prior firearm-related convictions, proposed release with two sureties and electronic monitoring.

The court found the proposed sureties inadequate, the accused's history of breaching court orders concerning, and the Crown's evidence of conspiracy compelling based on intercepted communications.

The court detained the accused on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision varying overnight access based on a material change in circumstances.

The trial judge found the appellant neglected the child's reading homework and allowed the child to play age-inappropriate video games.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's application of the legal test or assessment of the evidence, noting the appellant did not testify to explain his conduct.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the breakdown of a common-law relationship, the court determined issues relating to child support for a child of the relationship.

The central issue was the income of a self‑employed electrician operating an unprofitable business and whether income should be imputed under s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines for intentional underemployment.

Applying the principles from Drygala v. Panli and Riel v. Holland, the court held that a support payor cannot pursue unrealistic or unproductive career aspirations to the detriment of child support obligations.

Income was imputed beginning in 2010 at a level consistent with the payor’s earning capacity as an employed electrician.

Retroactive child support arrears were ordered and ongoing support set based on the imputed income, with proportional sharing of future section 7 expenses.

The Children's Aid Society appealed a trial judge's order granting a mother and aunt access to two children who had been made Crown wards.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in law by ignoring the statutory presumption against access to Crown wards and improperly placing the burden of proof on the Society.

The court also found the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding the beneficial nature of the access and its impact on the children's future opportunities for a permanent and stable adoptive placement.

The appeal was allowed, the access order for the mother and aunt was terminated, and the order was left silent on sibling access to allow the Society to facilitate it.

The applicant, a physician previously disciplined for professional misconduct, brought an application for judicial review challenging a College by-law regarding the public availability of disciplinary information.

In this motion, the applicant sought an interim order banning the publication of his name and allowing him to use initials in the court record.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that the disciplinary information had been public for over 13 years and there was no risk to the administration of justice or need to protect societal values of superordinate importance that would justify an exception to the open court principle.