Laura B. Stewart

In a civil jury action arising from a slip-and-fall, the court addressed trial management after an exit pre-trial and a subsequent trial management conference.

The court found the responding party unprepared to narrow issues, including blanket denials of requests to admit and no meaningful engagement on a joint document brief.

The endorsement emphasizes that late-stage trial preparation wastes party and court resources and contributes to systemic delay.

The court directed a further exit pretrial before the May 2026 blitz sitting, required counsel to provide the endorsement to clients, and set a timetable for written costs submissions.

This is a costs decision arising from an application for oppression remedies and wide-ranging relief that was dismissed in its entirety.

The respondents sought full indemnity costs of $273,584.40, with alternatives of substantial indemnity or partial indemnity costs.

The applicants sought partial indemnity costs of $60,000.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $169,000, finding that the applicants had pursued an unmeritorious application in breach of a prior settlement and enforcement order, with conduct that was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence.

The court also addressed the personal liability of Roland Foch and the joint and several liability of Roland Foch and Frank Foch's estate.

This is a costs decision following a trial in a family law application where the applicant sought to set aside or vary a 2012 separation agreement.

The trial decision (released June 6, 2025) set aside the agreement as it pertained to child support but upheld it regarding spousal support.

The respondent engaged in bad faith conduct throughout the litigation, including stopping child support payments, swearing false affidavits, providing false financial statements, breaching court orders, making false allegations in pleadings, and intimidating an expert witness.

The court awarded costs of $190,000 to the applicant, reduced from a full recovery amount of $225,000 to account for divided success on certain issues.

Costs were to be paid from funds held in trust from real estate transactions.

The court dismissed the application by Roland Foch and the estate of Frank Foch against Sharon Gun Club and related entities.

The applicants sought various remedies including oppression, a declaration of illegal operation, and financial/accounting relief.

The court found the applicants lacked standing against two of the three respondents, that the application was barred by prior litigation and settlement, and that the claims were statute-barred.

On the merits, the court found no evidence of oppression, financial impropriety, or illegal operation.

The court also granted a limited sealing order for a redacted shareholder list exhibit.

The court considered an application by Wioleta Kosewski to set aside or vary a separation agreement with Mariusz Kosewski, particularly as it pertained to child support and spousal support.

The court found that the child support provisions were unreasonable due to lack of income disclosure and adjustment, and set aside those provisions, ordering new support based on expert evidence of the respondent’s income.

The spousal support waiver was not set aside, as the applicant did not meet the evidentiary threshold for duress or lack of understanding.

The court also addressed section 7 expenses, medical and dental expenses, outstanding costs orders, and the allocation of expert fees.

This decision resolves a family law dispute between Parmjot K. Kounsil and Harpreet Singh Kounsil, addressing issues including the date of separation, property in Alberta, primary residence and decision-making for the child K., parental communication, transportation, alcohol use, relocation, travel, income imputation, child and spousal support, health and life insurance, supervision costs, and costs of the proceeding.

The court finds the date of separation to be March 2018, orders sole decision-making to the mother, imputes minimum wage income to the father for certain years, and makes detailed orders on child support, health coverage, and other matters.

The decision concerns a Hague Convention application by Mr. Patel for the return of his children to Morocco after their removal to Canada by Ms. Hamdaoui.

The court found that the children were habitually resident in Morocco at the time of removal, that Mr. Patel had and was exercising rights of custody, and that no defences to return (consent/acquiescence or grave risk of harm) were established.

The court ordered the return of the children to Morocco and set out undertakings and directions for the parties.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion for default judgment.

The plaintiff, Ms. Tomicki, sought substantial indemnity costs against the defendant, Mr. Ryvola, after he failed to repay a loan and did not respond to the default judgment motion, thereby unnecessarily lengthening the proceedings.

The court found Mr. Ryvola's conduct warranted substantial indemnity costs and awarded the plaintiff $17,069.99, adjusting the requested legal fees and disbursements.

The applicant mother and respondent father, a common-law couple with one child, separated in 2015.

This trial addressed remaining issues after nine years of litigation, including income imputation for the applicant, child support, division of section 7 expenses, and therapy for the child and family.

The court imputed an income of $72,072 to the applicant, determined child support based on a set-off method, ordered section 7 expenses to be shared proportionate to individual incomes, and mandated family therapy to improve co-parenting and support the child.

The applicant's abandoned relocation claim was formally dismissed.

This costs endorsement followed a motion for enforcement of an arbitration award.

The applicant was successful in enforcing the award but was denied a worldwide Mareva injunction.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the respondents' conduct during arbitration was reprehensible.

The court, however, awarded partial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the respondents on the motion itself and affirming their right to require the applicant to prove their case.

The respondents were ordered to pay costs jointly and severally.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2019 final consent order regarding parenting of their 8-year-old child.

The respondent father had withheld in-person parenting time from the mother for three years and was previously found in contempt.

The child exhibited severe behavioural issues and defiance toward the mother but not the father.

The court found a material change in circumstances and ordered a hybrid parenting plan, requiring immediate reunification therapy paid for by the father, 50/50 parenting time pending a review, and for the court to remain seized of the matter for one year to ensure compliance and monitor the child's best interests.

The plaintiff, Natalie Walker, brought a motion for default judgment against 13690792 Canada Inc. and its directors, Rafiqul Malik and Titus Muhuri, for misappropriation of $69,000 loaned for real estate investment.

The defendants failed to defend the action or respond to the motion, having been noted in default.

The court found the defendants jointly and severally liable for civil fraud, piercing the corporate veil due to the directors using the corporation as a shell to funnel money to themselves.

The court awarded damages, punitive damages, prejudgment and postjudgment interest, and costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the defendants' sanctionable conduct, including breaching a prior court order.

This is a costs endorsement following an application decision that determined dog ownership.

The court addressed the proportionality of legal costs, noting that both parties incurred excessive fees (over $265,000 collectively) for a non-monetary issue.

Despite the applicant's success in the underlying application, the court found the requested costs disproportionate and awarded partial indemnity costs of $83,570, significantly less than the $129,345.90 partial indemnity sought by the applicant, and less than the respondent's offer to pay for the dog.

The applicant brought a motion for a refraining order against the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) to prevent the suspension of his passport and driver's license, and for an order temporarily terminating his spousal and child support obligations.

The court dismissed the motion for a refraining order, finding the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case or clean hands, as he had unilaterally reduced and stopped support payments.

The court also dismissed the motion to temporarily terminate support, finding no urgency and a lack of clean hands under the Berta test.

The Minister of National Revenue brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for unpaid federal and integrated student loans.

The defendant did not respond to the motion.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, determining that the defendant had entered into loan agreements and failed to repay them.

The action was deemed to be within the applicable limitation period due to the defendant's prior acknowledgement of the debt.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, awarding the outstanding principal amounts, pre-judgment interest, and partial indemnity costs, while clarifying the calculation of post-judgment interest.

The applicant father brought a motion for the return of the four-year-old child from Alberta to Ontario, following the respondent mother's unilateral relocation and breach of a prior undertaking to return the child to Ontario.

The court had previously confirmed jurisdiction in Ontario.

The mother's evidence regarding the child's safety and a new status quo was found to be contradictory and insufficient, as her actions constituted extreme self-help remedies.

The court emphasized that self-help would not be rewarded and that the child's best interests, including maintaining a relationship with both parents, necessitated the child's return to Ontario.

The motion for the child's return was granted, with specific orders for transfer of care and future parenting arrangements.

The Bank of Montreal (BMO) sought leave for an extension of time to issue a writ of seizure and sale against the defendant, Adams, more than six years after obtaining default judgment.

The court applied a two-part test: whether the plaintiff waived its rights or acquiesced in non-payment, and whether the debtor relied to his detriment.

The court found BMO met the low bar for the first part, but also found it unjust to penalize the debtor with interest accrued due to BMO's slow action.

Leave was granted, but the writ amount was limited to the judgment, interest, and costs up to December 31, 2019.

The defendants, Inira Properties Inc. and Rajeev Raveendran, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration of ownership over a property and a writ of possession against the plaintiff, Katie Hewitson.

The plaintiff, who had been residing in the property, conceded she had no legal or equitable interest in it and could not support her claims.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, declaring them the lawful owners and granting leave for a writ of possession, with enforcement stayed until July 12, 2024.

The court also awarded the defendants general damages for fixed costs and opportunity costs, and substantial indemnity costs, while declining to award punitive damages.

The applicant sought an order to compel the sale of a jointly owned home with the respondent, her son, due to his repeated failure to meet financial obligations related to the property.

Despite being properly served, the respondent did not appear at two hearings.

The court granted the application, finding that the applicant could no longer afford the property due to the respondent's breaches of agreement and debt accumulation, posing a risk of foreclosure.

The court ordered the sale of the property, dispensed with the respondent's consent for listing and sale documents, and ordered the respondent to pay costs and vacate the property upon sale.

The parties, who immigrated to Canada from India, engaged in a high-conflict family law dispute with proceedings in both jurisdictions.

The respondent mother brought a motion arguing Ontario lacked jurisdiction and the case should be heard in India.

The applicant father brought a cross-motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached in July 2022 and sought temporary child support.

The court dismissed the mother's jurisdiction motion, finding Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter and was the appropriate forum.

The court granted the father's motion to enforce the settlement agreement, rejecting the mother's argument that it was accepted by mistake or invalidated by an Indian court injunction.

The mother was also ordered to pay temporary child support.