Lauren M. Angle

This costs endorsement followed motions heard over two days in January 2022, where the applicant sought substantial indemnity costs and the respondent sought no costs.

The court found that both parties had divided success across the 11 issues raised in the underlying motions, which included parenting, support, income imputation, partition and sale, and disclosure.

Neither party's offers to settle engaged Rule 18(14) nor significantly influenced the costs decision under Rule 24.

Given the fairly evenly divided success, the court determined it was fair and reasonable for each party to bear their own costs, resulting in no costs order.

This decision addresses interlocutory motions concerning parenting time, decision-making responsibility, child and spousal support, property division (specifically partition and sale of a jointly owned property), and disclosure.

The court declined to change the temporary parenting order or the children's school, maintaining the status quo.

Joint decision-making was ordered, and a mutual alcohol prohibition during parenting time was imposed.

The court imputed income to both parties for support purposes, using the applicant's actual income and the respondent's income as determined by his expert.

Child and spousal support were ordered.

The applicant's request for partition and sale of a jointly owned property was dismissed, as it would prejudice the respondent's constructive trust claim, which was deemed a genuine issue for trial.

Further disclosure orders were made regarding the respondent's financial records and property appraisals.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the applicant successfully obtained an order for in-person schooling for the parties' child, and the remaining issue of residency was subsequently resolved by Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis, while the respondent argued for no costs or partial indemnity.

The court found the applicant was the successful party regarding the schooling issue and was entitled to some costs.

However, the respondent's conduct was not deemed unreasonable enough to warrant full recovery costs.

The court considered the importance and complexity of the issues and the parties' resolution of the second issue.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking reinstatement of parenting time, make-up time, and police enforcement after the respondent father unilaterally denied her access to their three children for two months, citing COVID-19 concerns.

The court granted the applicant's requests, finding the father's actions unjustified and his cooperation lacking.

Two weeks of make-up parenting time were ordered, followed by the resumption of the original shared parenting schedule, with police enforcement included due to the father's stated unwillingness to comply with an order he disagreed with.

The issue of costs was reserved.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment in a status review application, seeking to place the child in the permanent custody of the paternal aunt with access to the mother.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the child to her care.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding custody, as the mother's history of housing instability, contentious relationships involving domestic violence, and mental health concerns demonstrated she could not safely parent the child.

Custody was granted to the aunt.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the mother's access, as the society's proposed access schedule was not consented to and required further factual determination.

Following a two‑day motion concerning interim relief in an estate-related civil action, both parties sought costs after investing substantial legal resources in preparing and arguing the motion.

The court determined that most of the legal work related to investigating the merits of the underlying claims and would be more appropriately treated as costs in the cause.

However, the moving party achieved limited success by obtaining interim recovery of personal property and a certificate of pending litigation relating to land.

The court therefore awarded modest partial costs for those aspects of the motion while declining to award the broader costs sought by either side.

Additional submissions regarding an alleged lien on the vehicle were refused, and security in the amount of $35,000 was ordered to be paid into court pending resolution of the action.

The plaintiff brought a motion in a dependant’s relief action under the Succession Law Reform Act seeking interim support from the deceased’s estate, interim possession of a residence, and possession of a motor vehicle allegedly gifted inter vivos by the deceased.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to support because the evidence did not demonstrate cohabitation for three years or otherwise satisfy the definition of “spouse” under the Act, nor did she establish financial need.

Interim possession of the residence was also refused because the property was owned by a family trust and there was no statutory or injunctive basis to grant exclusive possession.

However, the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case that the deceased gifted her a BMW vehicle, supported by a signed transfer and recorded statements.

The court ordered interim preservation of the vehicle and permitted the plaintiff to elect between possession with security, estate possession with security, or sale with proceeds paid into court.