Gordon Scott Campbell

This costs endorsement addresses entitlement and quantum of costs following a family law dispute regarding a change of school for the parties' child and a withdrawn claim for an interest in the proceeds of sale of a home.

The court apportions costs based on success on the various issues, the reasonableness of the parties' conduct, and the use of withdrawn claims as litigation leverage.

The result is a net costs award of $10,000 payable from the Applicant to the Respondent.

This application concerned the interpretation of Eleanor Martha Devonport's will regarding a residential property gifted to her son, Peter, who predeceased her.

The applicant, Peter's spouse and estate trustee, argued the property passed to her via the anti-lapse provision (s. 31) of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The respondent, Eleanor's surviving child and estate trustee, contended Eleanor's will expressed a contrary intention, causing the gift to lapse into the residue of the estate.

The court found no contrary intention in the will to oust the anti-lapse provision, ruling the property passed to the applicant.

The court also dismissed the respondent's unjust enrichment claim and ordered the respondent to account for dealings with the property and pay occupation rent to the applicant.

The appellant, Ms. White, appealed a trial judge's order varying a separation agreement, specifically challenging the imputation of income to her of $35,000 per year and the refusal to impute higher income to the respondent, Mr. White.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's discretionary decision regarding income imputation.

The trial judge's findings were based on the separation agreement's terms requiring Ms. White to make reasonable efforts to support herself, and evidence concerning Mr. White's job loss and efforts to find new employment.

The plaintiff, a student, brought a motion under Rule 51.06(1) seeking judgment against the defendant instructor for breach of fiduciary duty and an assessment of damages, stemming from a sexual relationship between them.

The motion was dismissed because the court found serious issues of fact and law, conflicting submissions, credibility issues, and the defendant's right to a trial on viva voce evidence, indicating that the admissions made were not sufficiently clear or definite to grant judgment without a full hearing.

The applicant sought a declaration of a right-of-way over the respondent's property for vehicle parking.

The parties settled the main issue via minutes of settlement, leaving only the matter of costs for the court to determine.

The applicant sought substantial costs, arguing full success and moderate complexity.

The respondent argued the application was unnecessary and could have been resolved amicably.

The court found no basis to award costs to the applicant, concluding the litigation was not complex or necessary, and that the applicant's claims of obstruction were unsubstantiated.

The appellant, Shawn Poitras, appealed a trial decision that awarded the respondent, Natalie Burke, child and spousal support, arrears, an equalization payment, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, following an uncontested trial where the appellant's answer was struck due to repeated non-disclosure.

The appellant raised four grounds of appeal: denial of participation rights, insufficient scrutiny of the respondent's evidence, indefinite spousal support, and excessive costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, denying leave to file fresh evidence (failing the Palmer test), finding no unfairness regarding participation rights given the appellant's conduct, upholding the trial judge's scrutiny of evidence and spousal support award (applying Moge and SSAGs), and affirming the costs award.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges of assault with a weapon, breaking and entering, robbery, and aggravated assault.

The Crown argued that the trial judge erred in law by assessing the evidence piecemeal rather than considering it holistically, thereby failing to appreciate how the cumulative evidence built the strength of the Crown's case.

While the appellate court found that the trial judge did commit an error of law in her approach to the evidence, the appeal was dismissed because the victim—a Crown witness who knew the respondent well—testified with certainty that the attacker was not the respondent.

This independent exculpatory evidence raised a reasonable doubt that could not be overcome by the trial judge's error.

The father appealed a trial judgment permitting the mother to relocate with two children (ages five and seven) from Orleans, Ontario to Montreal, Quebec.

The father moved for a stay of the trial judgment pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the grounds of appeal were not particularly strong, that the father would not suffer irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the relocation to proceed.

The trial judgment had granted the father increased access, including overnight access on alternating weekends commencing February 2020, and the mother had made arrangements to facilitate the father's continued relationship with the children.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's decision to order his surrender to the United States of America pursuant to the Extradition Act.

The applicant, a Mohawk of Akwesasne with Aboriginal heritage, argued that the Minister failed to give proper consideration to Gladue principles and his Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Minister's decision, finding that she had properly considered all relevant factors, including the applicant's Aboriginal background and Gladue principles, and that the applicant's circumstances were distinguishable from prior cases.

The court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found the Minister's decision fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The defendants were charged with aiding and abetting others to enter Canada without appearing for examination before a Canada Border Services Officer, contrary to section 124(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The defendants brought a constitutional challenge under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 and sections 15, 7, and 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The defendants claimed an aboriginal right to mobility within Mohawk territory at Akwesasne for family and community purposes without reporting at the border, and alleged that the reporting requirements were discriminatory and violated their liberty and freedom of association.

The court dismissed all constitutional challenges and found the defendants guilty.

The applicant sought the release of seized cash under s. 462.34 of the Criminal Code to fund legal expenses in pending criminal proceedings.

Police had seized more than $1 million in cash during a search that also uncovered drugs and other evidence.

The court accepted that the seized funds were available for potential release and that the applicant had established sole entitlement to the money despite arguments about possible competing claims.

However, the applicant failed to demonstrate financial need, as required under s. 462.34, given inconsistencies between his claimed lack of assets and evidence that he possessed substantial unexplained cash and lived in a mortgage-free home.

The application for release of funds for legal fees was therefore denied.