3 total
Successful mother received reduced trial costs payable by instalments.
This was a costs endorsement following a three-day family trial concerning parenting and child support for two children.
The court held that the mother was more successful overall, particularly on child support and decision-making responsibility, although success was divided on several other issues.
The court analyzed the parties' offers to settle under the Family Law Rules and found that only the mother's offers attracted subrule 24 (12) consequences on the issue of decision-making responsibility, while the father's offers did not meet the technical requirements or were not as favourable as the result.
After considering proportionality, settlement efforts, unreasonable conduct, rates, the successful party's bill of costs, and the father's ability to pay, the court fixed costs at $16,950 payable by monthly instalments.
Application to exclude apartment security videos dismissed; no reasonable expectation of privacy in common areas.
In a pre-trial ruling for a first-degree murder trial, the accused applied to exclude security video surveillance recordings obtained by police from the common areas of his apartment building.
The accused argued the warrantless seizure violated his s. 8 Charter rights.
The court dismissed the application, finding the accused had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of the 246-unit building.
The court further held that even if a breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter as the police acted in good faith and the evidence was highly reliable and important to the case.
Warranty claim denied as homeowners acted as their own general contractor, meaning no 'builder' existed.
The Applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claim on the basis that the Added Party, Olympia Ventures, was not a 'builder' under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.
The Applicants argued they hired the Added Party to build their custom home.
The Tribunal found that the Applicants retained control over the construction, directly hired and paid the architect, tradespersons, and site supervisor, and acted as their own general contractor.
The Added Party acted only as a project manager and consultant.
As there was no 'builder' within the meaning of the Act, the Applicants were not entitled to warranty coverage, and the appeal was dismissed.
