Kristen Morris

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 25, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The respondent sought costs following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to set aside a purported settlement and the respondent's cross-motion for summary judgment to enforce the settlement.

The respondent claimed costs on a full recovery basis or alternatively on a partial indemnity basis up to May 15, 2025, and thereafter on a full indemnity basis, citing the applicant's bad faith conduct.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis prior to May 16, 2025, and on a full indemnity basis thereafter, but reduced the amount to account for proportionality and excluded costs related to the respondent's cross-motion and attendance by a second counsel.

The final costs award was fixed at $19,000.

The applicant sought a retroactive adjustment of child support, payment of arrears, and changes to section 7 expenses and life insurance coverage.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the respondent’s increased income and determined that retroactive child support should be paid from April 1, 2018, based on the Child Support Guidelines.

The court also addressed the duration of child support, payment of arrears, section 7 expenses, and life insurance benefits, and provided directions for costs.

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.

The plaintiff, a slip priority note holder, sued the defendant sailing club for breach of contract after the club unilaterally changed its summer dockage rates, eliminating a long-standing 20% rate differential for slip priority holders.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing no such agreement existed or was breached.

The court found a valid contract based on objective intent and conduct, including 40 years of consistent application of the 20% differential.

The court determined the club breached this agreement by unilaterally altering its terms and granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, ordering damages and specific performance of the original rate differential.

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.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the applicant, Jennifer Tovell, for child support and a successful opposition to the respondent, Douglas Jamieson's, cross-motion for shared parenting and set-off child support.

The court found Mr. Jamieson's conduct unreasonable, including providing false and misleading evidence and failing to accept a reasonable offer to settle, which amounted to bad faith.

Consequently, the court awarded Ms. Tovell costs on a full recovery basis, fixed at $8,702.41, inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements, enforceable as support.

The court addressed several family law issues following a marital separation, including the characterization of a $50,000 advance from the applicant's father (loan vs. gift), the division of chattels, and the respondent's claims for unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and unequal division of net family property.

The court determined the $50,000 was a gift, not a loan, and dismissed the applicant's claim for associated interest.

While the respondent successfully established unjust enrichment due to her significant contributions to childcare for children with special needs and household management, the court declined to award a constructive trust or unequal division of net family property due to insufficient evidence to quantify the monetary value of her contributions and delays by both parties in bringing the application.

However, the respondent's spousal support entitlement was designated as compensatory.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary sole custody, retroactive child support, and contribution to special and extraordinary expenses.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for shared parenting and set-off child support.

The court found that the father's history of controlling behaviour and failure to pay support weighed against joint custody.

The court granted temporary sole custody to the mother, expanded the father's access to 35% of the time, and ordered the father to pay retroactive child support, ongoing table support, and 50% of the children's section 7 expenses.

This is an addendum to reasons for judgment in a child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court issued an addendum to clarify that the original order dated October 20, 2016 should include a provision granting the maternal grandparents authority to renew the child's passport and to travel with the child, or authorize the child's travel, out of Canada, without notice to or consent of the mother.

The addendum was necessary because this relief, which was discussed during the hearing and in the original reasons, was inadvertently omitted from the order section of the judgment.

Following a family law motion concerning a father's request for unsupervised access to the youngest child, the court was asked to determine costs after the parties failed to reach agreement.

The father had sought unsupervised access, shared transportation for access visits, and police enforcement of access.

While he succeeded on the issue of whether access had to occur in the presence of the maternal grandmother, other aspects of his position were not accepted, including transportation sharing and police enforcement.

The court found both parties were motivated by legitimate concerns for the child’s best interests and that the motion produced a divided result.

In the circumstances, and considering the mother's limited financial means, the court declined to award costs.