Dawn Bourque

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion for leave to appeal a temporary custody order, the self-represented applicant sought costs.

The court found the respondent's motion was unreasonable and should not have been brought, warranting costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court held that the applicant, though self-represented, performed the work of a lawyer efficiently and was entitled to be compensated for her time at a rate of $200 per hour.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of $12,091.85.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision setting aside a final order based on Minutes of Settlement in a family law dispute.

The parties had negotiated a settlement, but there was a dispute over whether a binding agreement had been reached before the respondent entered a residential treatment program.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the parties were not ad idem and that the June Minutes of Settlement were no longer open for acceptance when the appellant signed them in October.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following an appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement fixing costs in favour of the successful respondent in the amount of $11,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The parties entered into a separation agreement in 1994.

The respondent's income increased dramatically starting in 1996, but he did not disclose this to the appellant.

The appellant sought retroactive child support.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding no implicit duty to disclose in the agreement and no blameworthy conduct.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while the trial judge erred under the new D.B.S. framework in finding no blameworthy conduct, her holistic consideration of all factors—including the children's needs being met, the appellant's delay, and the potential hardship to the respondent—justified denying the retroactive award.

The appeal was dismissed.