Paul Daffern

Following successful motions to strike the plaintiffs' $5 million claim as statute-barred, the defendants sought their costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the requested amounts were disproportionate and suggested a combined award of $10,000.

The court reviewed the complexity of the historical claims, the extensive document retrieval required, and the plaintiffs' conduct which prolonged the proceedings.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court awarded costs of $85,000 to each defendant.

The plaintiffs commenced an action in 2020 alleging breach of an airport lease and negligent misrepresentation regarding a lease extension promised between 1985 and 1995.

The defendants moved to strike the claims under Rule 21.01(1) as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs argued the Real Property Limitations Act applied or that the breaches were ongoing.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the claims were subject to the Limitations Act, 2002 and the former Limitations Act.

The court held it was plain and obvious that the plaintiffs discovered their claims between 1999 and 2013, well beyond the applicable limitation periods.

The action was dismissed without leave to amend.

Following a successful Motion to Change regarding child support and income determination, the applicant mother sought costs.

The court found the mother was the successful party and that the father's unreasonable conduct regarding financial disclosure significantly increased the litigation costs.

The court awarded the mother costs of $204,913.81 on an elevated partial indemnity scale to reflect the father's unreasonable conduct.

Following a trial of competing motions to change, the court found a material change in circumstances based on significantly increased payor income and altered parenting arrangements.

The court rejected the respondent's financial disclosure as unreliable, imputed and averaged income using source-and-use analysis, corporate benefits, personal expenses paid through business, income-splitting, and adverse inferences arising from non-disclosure.

Child support was recalculated, including under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines for shared parenting periods, but the court used a simple set-off because the expense evidence was too vague for a fuller Contino analysis.

Retroactive child support was awarded from August 1, 2016 in the amount of $222,484, ongoing support was fixed at $6,671 per month, section 7 expenses were apportioned 13/87, and the support obligations were secured against real property and corporate interests.