Lawrence Kimberley Greaves

The plaintiffs, purchasers of a residential property, claimed damages against the defendant vendor for an alleged undisclosed latent defect (basement water leakage) and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court applied the doctrine of caveat emptor, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the defect was latent or that the defendant had knowledge of it, was reckless, or actively concealed it.

The court also found the plaintiffs' expert evidence inadmissible due to non-compliance with Rule 53.03.

The action was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following a five-day family law trial.

The Applicant Father sought various reliefs, including changes to parenting schedules and child counselling, most of which were either resolved by agreement or dismissed.

The Respondent Mother disputed the Father's claims and sought costs.

The court found the Mother substantially successful on parenting issues and more reasonable in her conduct, despite her failure to provide complete financial disclosure for child support calculations.

The Father's offers to settle were deemed unreasonable and non-severable, and some of his requested orders were outside the court's jurisdiction.

Considering the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and the Mother's success on key issues, the court awarded the Mother $30,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant father sought orders requiring the children to attend counselling, restricting travel discussions, and varying child support in a shared parenting arrangement.

The mother opposed the counselling and travel orders, and disputed the father's request to impute her income at $67,000 following a period of disability.

The court dismissed the father's requests for counselling and travel restrictions, finding the children were well-adjusted and the primary issue was high parental conflict.

The court imputed part-time and full-time minimum wage income to the mother for the periods she was not receiving disability benefits, and ordered child support to be calculated using the set-off approach under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

This ruling addresses the costs of an application where both parties acted in good faith and presented meritorious positions.

The court found that both were well-represented and neither suffered unexpected prejudice from the court's decision.

Consequently, the court directed that each party shall bear their own costs of the application.

This ruling on application addresses the equalization of net family properties and spousal support following the separation of a couple married for nearly 30 years.

The court determined the separation date as 2010, despite conflicting evidence, and proceeded to divide assets to ensure financial security for both parties.

The applicant was awarded the matrimonial home, a global support payment, and an equal share of proceeds from a Portuguese property, while the respondent retained an income-generating property.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a ten-day family law trial where the wife was largely successful.

The court had previously found the husband responsible for misappropriating business funds and owing an equalization payment.

The wife sought substantial indemnity costs, while the husband also claimed costs.

The court dismissed the husband's claim for costs due to his lack of success at trial and the irrelevance of his settlement offers.

The wife was awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, approaching full recovery, primarily due to her success and the husband's misconduct in misappropriating funds and frustrating her efforts to recover them, which necessitated calling numerous witnesses.

This trial addressed a dispute between separated spouses, equal shareholders in a landscaping business, concerning the husband's alleged misappropriation of funds and the equalization of net family property.

The court found the husband lacked credibility and had indeed skimmed cash payments from the business.

The husband was ordered to pay $76,275.00 to the corporation for misappropriated funds and $122,340.22 to the wife as an equalization payment, with the full value of the business attributed to him due to his effective takeover.

The wife's claim for punitive damages was dismissed, as the other orders and costs were deemed sufficient for denunciation and deterrence.

The father sought custody and child support for a child born in 2003, and sought to prohibit the mother from relocating the child from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to Casselman, Ontario.

The mother cross-claimed for custody and permission to relocate with the child to the Ottawa area, and sought ongoing and retroactive child support.

The parties agreed to joint custody.

The court found that the mother had been the primary caregiver throughout the child's life, while the father had limited involvement in the child's education, health care, and day-to-day needs.

The father's proposed living arrangements were inadequate, and he demonstrated an inability to regulate the child's behaviour.

The mother's plan to relocate with her fiancé LN provided a more stable environment with better access to services and a lifestyle more suited to the child's needs.

The court granted primary residence to the mother and permitted the relocation.