Lindsey D. Mazza

This costs endorsement followed the dismissal of an interlocutory motion brought by the respondent (Greg) seeking to transfer the applicant's (Suzanne's) shares in the family farm corporation.

The court found the respondent's conduct, including non-compliance with court orders, financial disclosure failures, and litigation tactics, amounted to bad faith and litigation bullying.

Consequently, the court awarded full indemnity costs of $24,113.64 to the applicant, emphasizing that such egregious conduct warranted sanction.

The respondent father filed an urgent motion seeking equal time-sharing of the parties' three-year-old daughter, claiming no contact since separation.

The applicant mother opposed this and filed a cross-motion for custody and financial relief.

The court initially found the father's request for access potentially urgent but later set aside its prior endorsement after the mother disclosed a pre-existing temporary court order restricting the father's contact, which the father had failed to mention.

The court ruled that neither the father's motion nor the mother's cross-motion qualified as urgent under COVID-19 protocols, emphasizing the reliance on complete disclosure from counsel during electronic proceedings.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking immediate equal time-sharing of the parties' three-year-old daughter, having not seen her since separation in February 2020 due to criminal charges and a court undertaking.

The applicant mother raised concerns about violence, criminal charges, the father's mental health, and COVID-19 safety.

The court, acting as Triage Judge during COVID-19 suspensions, determined that the request for immediate equal time-sharing with police enforcement was not urgent, given the serious allegations and the need for more information.

However, the general request for establishing some access was deemed potentially urgent.

The court ordered an expedited Case Conference to address temporary access, with strict limits on materials for any subsequent emergency hearing.

The parties engaged in a high-conflict family law trial primarily concerning the custody and access of their two children.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, alleging the children were alienated from the respondent father and his new wife.

The respondent father sought sole custody, alleging the mother was alienating the children from him.

The court found both parties contributed to the conflict but determined the mother's evidence lacked credibility on several substantive issues.

The court awarded custody to the father with an equal timesharing arrangement, finding he was more likely to facilitate contact with the other parent.

The court also ordered ongoing therapeutic intervention to ensure a balanced relationship between the children and both parents, and determined the parties' incomes for child support purposes.

The matter was scheduled for a three-day trial regarding an application to terminate or reduce spousal support.

The parties failed to attend, and their counsel requested an adjournment due to a miscommunication by an agent and a lack of a settlement conference.

The court refused the adjournment, noting the prejudice to the judicial system and other litigants.

Counsel subsequently presented minutes of settlement withdrawing the claims on a without prejudice basis.

The court rejected this approach to prevent misuse of judicial resources and dismissed the claims in the Application and Answer, requiring leave of the court for any future proceedings.

The father brought a motion to change to prevent the mother from moving with their 3-year-old child from Dundas to the Kincardine area to live with her fiancé.

The mother sought an order allowing the move.

The court found that the proposed move constituted a material change in circumstances.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz framework, the court determined that the move was in the child's best interests, as it would provide the mother with financial stability and a new family unit, while the father would still have regular access.

The mother was permitted to relocate with the child, and the father's access schedule was adjusted to accommodate the increased distance.

Following a motion in family proceedings, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful party sought substantial or full indemnity costs exceeding $4,800, while the opposing party argued that such elevated costs were not justified and challenged the time spent by opposing counsel.

The court held that criticisms of counsel’s time expenditures were unsupported without a comparative bill of costs from the opposing party.

Given that several issues were resolved through Minutes of Settlement and did not require argument, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and instead fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis.