Liam Christopher Michael Nicholas Cardill

The mother appealed a motion judge's decision to send the issue of the children's COVID-19 vaccination to trial rather than deciding it on a long motion.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by refusing to take judicial notice of Health Canada's regulatory approval of the vaccine, relying on inadmissible evidence, and failing to place the onus on the father to demonstrate why the children should not be vaccinated.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority over the children's COVID-19 vaccinations on a final basis.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and fixed costs of the motion at $2,500.

The court also set an expedited schedule for the hearing of the appeal and any contemplated motion to stay the appeal pending proceedings before the Supreme Court of Canada.

The parties sought costs on a partial indemnity basis following a motion regarding the choice of school for their children.

The respondent had succeeded in having the children attend private school and obtained her alternative relief that she alone be responsible for the fees.

The applicant claimed divided success because the respondent did not obtain an order for proportionate sharing of the fees.

The court rejected the applicant's argument, finding the respondent was the successful party on both issues.

The court awarded the respondent her claimed costs of $3,407.49.

The self-represented plaintiff, Brian Charbonneau, sought an urgent determination for the defendants' motion for summary judgment to proceed, requesting its dismissal and the scheduling of mediation.

The underlying dispute involved an erroneous land conveyance from 2011.

The plaintiff argued urgency due to potential farming business losses of $4,500 for the season.

The court, applying the Provincial Direction's definition of "urgent" (immediate and significant financial repercussions), found that the matter was not urgent, as the issue had been ongoing since 2015 and the potential loss was not deemed "significant." The request for urgency was denied.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's property claim, the respondent parties sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01, noting the applicant's conduct unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings and complicated a simple contractual dispute.

However, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the settlement offers did not trigger Rule 49.10 consequences.

The court reduced the requested amounts due to duplication of effort, excessive use of senior counsel, and unreasonable refusal of a settlement offer by one respondent, awarding total costs of $47,500 across the three respondents.

The applicant sought a declaration of ownership over a 13-acre parcel of land, relying on concepts of constructive/resulting trust, unjust enrichment, proprietary estoppel, and adverse possession.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish the legal requirements for these remedies and was barred by the doctrine of laches due to significant delay in asserting his claim after multiple property transfers.