Dana Lue

The applicant brought a motion for the partition and sale of a jointly owned property under the Partition Act.

The self-represented respondent opposed the sale, alleging an unresolved trust claim regarding a previous property.

The court found the respondent had not formally asserted a competing claim under the Family Law Act and that sufficient equity existed in the current property to secure any future claim.

Finding no malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct by the applicant, the court granted the motion for partition and sale and awarded the applicant $4,000 in costs.

Following a five-day trial regarding parenting and support arrangements, both parties sought costs.

The applicant mother sought $46,945.47, while the self-represented respondent father sought $42,724.23 and reimbursement for a paternity test.

The court found the mother was the successful party on the dominant issues of decision-making, primary residence, and child support.

The court noted the father's unreasonable conduct, including his failure to provide financial disclosure and his intentional under-employment.

The father was ordered to pay the mother $26,964.00 in costs, payable in monthly installments of $200.00, with 35% of the award enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as an incident of support.

The parties, who had a brief relationship and separated before their child's birth, engaged in a high-conflict trial over parenting and child support for their two-year-old child.

The mother sought sole decision-making, primary residence, and imputed income for child support, while the father sought joint decision-making, equal parenting time, and a name change for the child.

The court awarded the mother sole decision-making and primary residence, finding the father's communication abusive and controlling.

The father was granted alternate weekend parenting time.

The court imputed the father's income at $39,149 due to intentional under-employment and failure to provide financial disclosure, ordering retroactive child support and proportional contribution to daycare expenses.

The mother's requests for a police enforcement clause and a restriction on future motions were dismissed, as was the father's request to change the child's name, which the court lacked jurisdiction to grant.

The appellant grandmother appealed a summary judgment dismissing her application for access to her grandchildren.

She argued the motion judge erred by not determining who was to blame for the dysfunctional relationship between her and the respondent parents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that assigning blame would not assist in determining the best interests of the children, which was the sole question on the application.

Following motions for security for costs brought by two defendants, the court addressed the costs of those motions.

The defendants had obtained security for costs orders but in amounts lower than requested.

The court considered the factors under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 1.04, 56.01, and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the moving parties were largely successful, reductions were warranted due to incomplete success and procedural issues related to timing of a statement of defence.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and instead fixed fair and reasonable partial indemnity costs payable by the plaintiff.

Defendants brought motions for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure against a foreign corporate plaintiff resident in Russia with no assets in Ontario.

The court confirmed the two‑stage framework for security for costs motions and held the defendants met the initial burden because the plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside Ontario.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate impecuniosity or other circumstances making a security order unjust, despite having substantial funds abroad.

The court exercised its discretion to order staged security for costs, including amounts related to pending motions to discharge a certificate of pending litigation.

The court also granted a sealing order over a document containing non‑party investors’ financial information and awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff for the confidentiality motion.