Lynn H. Cayen

In a family law costs decision following a focused hearing on common-law cohabitation, the court applied s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court reviewed governing costs principles, including presumptive entitlement for success at a step, fairness and reasonableness, access to justice, and the relevance of litigation conduct and financial circumstances to quantum.

Although the successful party sought full indemnity costs for broader steps in the proceeding, the court confined the award to the focused hearing and found full indemnity unwarranted on the record.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs at 60% of the focused-hearing amount, totaling $8,014.64 inclusive of HST, payable in any event of the cause.

The applicant sought spousal support and a declaration of an interest in the respondent's property, alleging they cohabited as common-law spouses from 2000 to 2019.

The respondent claimed they were merely platonic friends and roommates since 2007.

Following a focused hearing, the court applied the Molodowich factors and found that the parties' conduct, including shared living arrangements, joint activities, and holding themselves out as spouses, demonstrated a spousal relationship.

The court declared that the parties cohabited within the meaning of the Family Law Act from September 2001 to March 2019.

The applicant sought interim spousal support from the respondent.

The respondent argued the motion was premature due to incomplete financial disclosure and alleged intentional underemployment.

The court found entitlement to support was conceded and that the applicant's post-separation standard of living significantly declined.

Despite disclosure issues, the court ordered interim spousal support based on averaged incomes using the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

An outstanding legal bill was also ordered paid from matrimonial home sale proceeds.

No costs were awarded due to the applicant's lack of cooperation with disclosure.

A child protection matter involving three children who had spent the majority of their lives in foster care.

The applicant society sought to determine whether the children should be returned to their parents or made Crown wards.

All parties signed minutes of settlement agreeing to return the children to their parents' care with a six-month supervision order.

The court, while expressing reservations about the parents' readiness, approved the settlement based on the paramount purpose of the Child and Family Services Act and the statutory obligation to preserve the cultural identity of Indigenous children.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder and appealed a hybrid detention disposition made by the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant argued that the Board erred in finding he posed a significant risk to public safety and in failing to grant an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's finding of significant risk was supported by the evidence, including the unanimous opinion of the treatment team.

The Court also rejected the appellant's procedural fairness arguments regarding the late delivery of a hospital report and alleged bias.