Kaitlin Anne Jagersky

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from an appeal and underlying arbitration concerning child vaccination decisions.

The appellant father had successfully appealed an arbitrator's decision, gaining sole final responsibility for vaccination-related decisions for the children.

The court considered the principles governing costs awards, including the presumptive entitlement of the successful party, the treatment of pro bono counsel for costs recovery, and the assessment of offers to settle.

The court found the appellant was the successful party but did not beat his offer to settle.

It concluded that costs on a partial indemnity scale were appropriate, ordering the respondent to pay the appellant $52,000 all-inclusive for costs of both the appeal and arbitration.

This decision addresses a motion for leave to intervene brought by the Medical Officer of Health (City of Toronto) (MOH) in an appeal concerning the vaccination of children.

The appellant sought to overturn an arbitrator's decision that declined to order the children's vaccination, while the respondent opposed vaccination.

The court determined it had jurisdiction to hear the intervention motion remotely and in writing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Applying the test for intervention, the court found that the MOH had a substantial public interest in the issues of vaccine efficacy, expert evidence gatekeeping, and judicial notice of public health policy.

The MOH's distinct public health perspective was deemed a useful contribution without causing injustice to the parties.

Leave to intervene was granted.

The Superior Court of Justice ruled on costs following a motion where the respondent largely succeeded.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, finding the respondent's offers realistic and the applicant's unreasonable.

Despite the applicant's negative net worth, the court awarded the respondent $65,000 in costs, allowing this amount to be offset against future spousal support payments, effectively terminating the respondent's spousal support obligations.

The appellant appealed from a Superior Court decision upholding an Ontario Court of Justice decision dismissing his motion to appoint private counsel for his two children.

The appellant sought to have private counsel appointed to conduct an investigation into the children's wishes regarding access arrangements, similar to what the Office of the Children's Lawyer would do.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding that the children had been consulted by OCL counsel two years prior and had indicated no desire for change, that they were well-functioning and not exhibiting behavioral or academic issues, and that appointing counsel would not be in their best interests.

The Superior Court upheld this decision, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appointment of counsel for children is discretionary under the Family Law Rules and must focus on the best interests of the children, to which deference is owed to the motion judge's assessment.

The applicant sought costs after successfully resisting the respondent's motion to set aside a default judgment.

The respondent argued against costs, citing a reasonable belief about the applicant's ability to bring proceedings, alleged overpayment of child support, and existing costs awards.

The court found no basis to displace the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs and awarded partial indemnity costs to the applicant.

The court rejected the respondent's financial hardship as a relevant consideration for the quantum of costs in this case and found no bad faith on the respondent's part to warrant full indemnity costs.