K. Morris

The plaintiff was successful on a summary judgment motion brought by the defendant and sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The defendant argued that the parties should bear their own costs due to the plaintiff's conduct, or alternatively, that costs should be reduced.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments regarding the plaintiff's conduct and the use of Toronto counsel, but also declined to award substantial indemnity costs or penalize the defendant for refusing to mediate.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $39,325.00, after making a reduction for overlapping time among the plaintiff's legal team.

Following two family law motions where the respondent father was largely successful, the court determined the issue of costs.

The father sought costs of $7,984.58 on a full indemnity basis or $5,269.82 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant mother, who became self-represented, argued against the quantum, citing her own legal costs and an inability to pay.

The court found no justification for full indemnity costs, noting the mother's lack of bad conduct and that the father's offer to settle was not beaten.

Rejecting the mother's claim of inability to pay, the court ordered her to pay partial indemnity costs of $5,269.82 within 60 days.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding parenting and child support.

On consent, the court ordered child support, section 7 expenses, and communication protocols.

The mother's request for a sealing order was dismissed as she failed to demonstrate a serious risk to the administration of justice.

Relying on a thorough Office of the Children's Lawyer report, the court granted the father temporary sole decision-making authority and primary residency, with equal parenting time on a week-about schedule to minimize transitions.

The court also upheld the OCL recommendation prohibiting alcohol consumption 24 hours prior to parenting.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to substitute or add three doctors as defendants in a medical malpractice action arising from a hypoxic brain injury suffered by the infant plaintiff following a VP shunt revision.

The plaintiffs sought to substitute Dr. Caird for 'Dr. James Doe' under the doctrine of misnomer, and alternatively to add him and two other doctors based on discoverability.

The court allowed the substitution of Dr. Caird, finding the litigation finger clearly pointed at him as the only resident on call during the relevant time.

The motion to add the other two doctors was dismissed as the evidence showed the plaintiff's mother did not call the hospital on the days they were working.