Lisa Rose Baumal

Following an uncontested trial where the applicant was awarded quantum meruit damages and spousal support, the applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis, arguing the respondent's failure to participate constituted bad faith.

The court found that while the respondent acted unreasonably, his behavior did not rise to the level of bad faith given his physical and mental health issues.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing them at $13,283.50, to be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the respondent's property.

Following an uncontested family law trial between long‑term unmarried cohabitants, the court addressed claims for unjust enrichment, lump‑sum spousal support, and a vesting order over the respondent’s real property.

The applicant had provided extensive caregiving and domestic services to the respondent during the final years of the 21‑year relationship while he suffered cognitive decline.

Applying the principles from Kerr v. Baranow, the court found the respondent had been unjustly enriched and awarded quantum meruit damages for the caregiving services.

The court also found entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act due to the long duration of cohabitation, economic disparity, and the applicant’s financial hardship, awarding a lump sum support payment.

A conditional vesting order was granted permitting sale of the respondent’s property if the judgment was not satisfied within 45 days.

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary care and custody order for two young children following their apprehension.

The mother opposed the application and sought dismissal or alternative placements with herself or her mother.

The father sought placement with himself or his mother.

The court applied the two-part test under section 51(3) of the Child and Family Services Act and found reasonable grounds to believe the children would suffer harm if returned to either parent and that they could not be adequately protected by supervision orders.

The court placed the children in the temporary care of the society with supervised access to the mother and no access to the father pending further order.

The appellant appealed a finding of contempt and the resulting sanction related to child access exchanges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere as the contempt finding was based on credibility and the sanction was fashioned in the best interests of the child to address the root problem of the access exchanges.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the respondent.