Luigi DiPierdomenico

This endorsement addresses the costs of a dismissed motion to change a 2014 final order concerning child support and s. 7 expenses.

The respondent father, as the successful party on the underlying motion, sought costs on a full recovery basis, claiming over $303,000.

The court upheld the presumptive entitlement of the respondent father to costs, finding the applicant mother's challenge to the 2014 settlement to be groundless and unreasonable.

After considering factors such as the parties' behaviour, time spent, and offers to settle (none of which triggered cost consequences), the court fixed the respondent father's costs at $89,896.13, significantly less than claimed, and disallowed certain disbursements.

The costs award was made enforceable as a support order.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2014 final consent order regarding child support and section 7 expenses.

She sought to set aside the fixed child support provisions, arguing she did not understand the settlement due to cognitive distress and financial pressure.

The court dismissed her claims, finding her evidence not credible and upholding the settlement agreement.

The court also imputed an annual income of $90,000 to the applicant for 2017 and 2018 due to intentional under-employment, and ordered her to pay her 50 percent share of section 7 expenses totaling $8,060.82.

Following a successful motion by the respondent husband to vary and reduce his spousal support obligations, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The court found the respondent husband was the successful party and presumptively entitled to costs.

However, the court reduced his costs award because he engaged in unreasonable 'self-help' behaviour by unilaterally terminating all spousal support payments while his motion was pending.

The court awarded the respondent husband costs of $11,653.69 on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent husband brought a motion to vary an interim spousal support order that required him to pay $11,000 per month.

He argued that his forced retirement, resulting from the closure of his tool and die business, constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court found the retirement was reasonable and not voluntary, as the business lost its major client.

The court declined to impute income to the wife at the interim stage and determined the husband's income based on the corporate income available to him.

The interim spousal support was reduced to $2,400 per month.

The applicant husband, who suffers from a terminal illness, brought a motion seeking an order that his portion of his wife's monthly pension benefit be paid to his estate if he predeceases her.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Pension Benefits Act strictly governs the division of pensions and prohibits the assignment or bequest of pension benefits to an estate.

The statutory scheme guarantees that upon the death of the spouse, the remaining pension reverts back to the retired member.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment against the defendants on two promissory notes related to a land development company.

The defendants opposed, arguing promissory estoppel based on a verbal agreement that repayment would occur through the sale of residential lots.

The court found some evidence of a course of action relied upon by the defendants, suggesting a genuine issue for trial.

Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

A support payor who became an undischarged bankrupt challenged the jurisdiction of the Ontario Court of Justice to conduct a default hearing on child support arrears.

The payor argued that bankruptcy matters fall exclusively within the Superior Court of Justice's jurisdiction and that the stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act prevented the default hearing from proceeding.

The court held that a default hearing is a family law enforcement procedure, not a bankruptcy matter, and that support claims are not stayed by bankruptcy.

The court dismissed the jurisdictional challenge and confirmed its authority to conduct the default hearing.

The defendant, having successfully dismissed the plaintiffs' action, sought partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing public interest litigation, novelty of issues, and impecuniosity, and challenged the quantum.

The court found the litigation was a private dispute, not public interest, and rejected the impecuniosity argument due to lack of evidence.

However, the court reduced the defendant's claimed costs, noting the defendant's conduct contributed to the litigation's length through "uneven enforcement measures" and finding several claimed amounts excessive or improper.

The court fixed costs at $30,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by the plaintiffs to the defendant.

The plaintiffs sought damages for proprietary estoppel and/or negligent misrepresentation against the Town of LaSalle after the Town prohibited vehicular access to unopened road allowances, thereby restricting access to the plaintiffs' detached garage.

The plaintiffs alleged that the Town induced them to build the garage with implied permission for access via an unopened road allowance.

The court found that the Town was not aware of the plaintiffs' intention to use the unopened road allowance for vehicular access and that the plaintiffs' reliance was not reasonable.

The Town's actions were deemed a legitimate exercise of its powers to address legal, financial, and liability concerns.

The claims for proprietary estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, and punitive damages were dismissed.

The court also addressed the limitation period, finding the action was commenced within time.

The applicant, Anna Maria Fiorito, made an assignment in bankruptcy after being ordered to pay $200,000 in costs to the respondent, Jefferson Ross Wiggins, arising from protracted family law litigation.

The respondent moved for an order annulling the bankruptcy or, alternatively, lifting the stay of proceedings under section 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) to enforce the costs award against the applicant's exempt assets (RRSPs and other investment assets).

The court found that the applicant had misled the court and the respondent regarding her intention to pay costs and not file for bankruptcy.

The court granted the respondent's motion to lift the stay of proceedings, allowing enforcement against exempt assets, and stayed the applicant's bankruptcy discharge for eight months to facilitate enforcement.

Supplementary reasons clarifying aspects of an earlier medical negligence judgment arising from treatment provided at a hospital and by several physicians.

The court clarified that the action was dismissed against one physician and the hospital.

The court also clarified the appearance of additional defence counsel for two of the remaining physician defendants.

The reasons supplement the earlier judgment and resolve ambiguity in the disposition and counsel record.

The plaintiff sustained bilateral wrist fractures after a slip and fall and was treated at the defendant hospital.

The defendant doctors reduced the fractures and applied plaster splints.

The plaintiff subsequently developed a full thickness burn on her right arm, which she alleged was caused by the negligent application of the cast or a failure to properly diagnose and treat the injury.

The court found that the defendant doctors met the standard of care in their treatment and that the burn was an unfortunate, rare, and unforeseeable complication of the exothermic reaction from the plaster.

The action for medical malpractice was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendants.