L.L. Snowie

Following a family law trial involving divorce, custody, access, travel permissions, and support issues, the court determined the applicant was overwhelmingly the successful party.

The applicant obtained divorce, sole custody, a non-removal order, travel authorization, and a restraining order, while the respondent’s claims were entirely dismissed.

Although the applicant did not succeed on spousal support, retroactive child support, or a request relating to a religious divorce, the court found the balance of success strongly favoured her.

The court fixed costs in the applicant’s favour.

The court determined costs following a prior family law motion in which the applicant mother was substantially successful.

The self-represented applicant sought compensation for time spent preparing and arguing the motion.

The court found that she conducted herself professionally and efficiently despite facing a represented party.

In light of the significant preparation required and the unfounded allegations made against her, the court awarded modest costs compensating her time at her previous hourly wage plus disbursements.

In a family law proceeding, the court addressed costs following a motion in which a child protection agency sought intervener status regarding a custody and access determination.

The court had previously concluded that the agency lacked a bona fide interest in the matter and had lost its objectivity and professionalism, displaying bias against the mother.

The mother successfully opposed the agency’s request and was entirely successful on the motion.

The court determined that a self‑represented litigant may recover modest compensation for time spent but declined to award an hourly rate equivalent to that of a lawyer.

Costs were fixed based on the mother’s previous hourly earnings plus disbursements.

The successful party on a motion for summary judgment sought costs following the court’s disposition of the motion.

The court confirmed that the moving party had been entirely successful and therefore entitled to recover costs thrown away.

The court ordered the responding party to pay costs in the amount of $29,426.61.

Payment was directed to be made forthwith and in any event within 30 days.

Family law trial addressing child support, parenting arrangements, property division, and equalization following a brief marriage and separation.

The court ordered ongoing child support based on the respondent’s income and calculated arrears for prior years where guideline support had not been fully paid.

The applicant was granted sole custody with defined parenting time to the respondent and proportional sharing of section 7 expenses.

The court denied spousal support and determined the parties’ separation date for equalization purposes.

After accounting for mortgage payments, child support arrears, and equalization obligations, the applicant was required to pay a net amount to purchase the respondent’s interest in the matrimonial home.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action alleging negligence and lack of informed consent arising from cosmetic breast augmentation and tummy tuck surgery.

The court excluded the plaintiffs’ expert evidence because the expert lacked familiarity with the Ontario standard of care, leaving no admissible evidence on the negligence claim.

The court therefore dismissed the standard of care allegations but proceeded on the issue of informed consent.

Considering the patient’s limited English proficiency, education, and the circumstances surrounding the consultations and consent forms, the court found that the physician failed to ensure the patient understood the material risks and consequences of the procedures.

The court held that a reasonable person in the patient’s circumstances would not have proceeded had adequate disclosure been made, and awarded damages.

On a family law motion concerning a trust fund established by prior consent order to secure child support, the moving party sought release of the full $200,000 trust balance to himself.

The court found persistent non-payment of child support and section 7 expenses, extensive evidence of undisclosed capital resources, and repeated misrepresentations affecting credibility.

Income was imputed to the moving party, arrears were quantified, and the court assessed ongoing and future support obligations against the trust’s intended protective purpose.

Applying the Family Law Act support principles and the terms of the prior order, the court directed that the full trust balance with accrued interest be paid to the responding party for child support purposes.

All other relief was dismissed, with costs submissions to follow.

Following a proceeding between former spouses, the successful party sought costs.

The court confirmed that the successful applicant was entitled to costs against the respondent.

Rather than fixing the amount, the court directed that the quantum be determined by an Assessment Officer.

The decision addresses entitlement to costs only.