Linhares de Sousa

The applicant sought costs following a motion concerning interest on a judgment order and a variation of spousal support based on the respondent's post-separation income increase.

The court found that while success was divided, the applicant was substantially successful in obtaining interest, full payment of the judgment order, and a substantial increase in spousal support.

The court fixed costs payable by the respondent to the applicant at $10,000.

The applicant brought a motion to change a final order, seeking increased spousal support based on the respondent's significant post-separation income increase, as well as enforcement of a prior judgment for $21,600.00.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the respondent's increased income and determined the applicant had a compensatory claim entitling her to share in that increase.

The court ordered increased spousal support at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and directed the respondent to pay the outstanding judgment balance with interest.

The parties separated after a 24-year marriage during which the respondent built a highly successful software company and the applicant was a stay-at-home parent.

Post-separation, the respondent unilaterally redeemed the applicant's shares in the company and sold the business for $2.2 million without notice to the applicant.

The applicant sought an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The court found that an equal division would be unconscionable given the respondent's unilateral actions, lack of disclosure, and the windfall from the sale.

The court awarded the applicant an unequal division payment of $174,920.28.

The court also imputed investment income to the respondent and employment income to the applicant for the purposes of calculating retroactive and ongoing spousal and child support.

The applicants, representing taxi drivers and plate holders, sought to quash the City of Ottawa's 2016 Vehicle-for-Hire By-law, which created a separate regulatory regime for Private Transportation Companies (PTCs) like Uber.

The applicants argued the by-law was enacted in bad faith, granted an illegal bonus to PTCs, and was ultra vires.

The court dismissed the majority of the application, finding the City conducted extensive consultation, acted within its broad regulatory powers, and did not grant an undue advantage.

However, the court severed and quashed two specific provisions that were added to the by-law without notice to the stakeholders.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking findings that four children were in need of protection and seeking final disposition orders.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there were genuine issues for trial regarding protection and disposition.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding the children were in need of protection due to the mother's unstable housing, domestic violence, and inability to meet the children's needs, particularly one child's complex medical needs.

The court ordered Crown wardship for the medically fragile child, sole custody to the father for another child, and a six-month Society wardship for the two older children.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking Crown wardship for a 15-year-old child and a custody order to the paternal grandmother for a 14-year-old child.

The children were apprehended due to physical altercations and parent-child conflict.

The mother ultimately did not oppose the Crown wardship but sought conditions on access, and initially contested the custody order for the younger child.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, determined the children were in need of protection, and granted the Society's motion, ordering Crown wardship for the older child and custody to the paternal grandmother for the younger child.