Kristen Morris

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, 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.

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.