Madam Justice H. M. Pierce

The applicant moved for summary judgment for ongoing child and spousal support, as well as arrears.

The parties had a traditional marriage where the applicant stayed home to raise the children, allowing the respondent to advance his career.

The respondent failed to provide income disclosure since 2021 and did not respond to the motion.

The court granted summary judgment, ordering the respondent to pay child support arrears, section 7 expense arrears, and spousal support arrears, while imputing minimum wage income to the applicant.

The court also ordered ongoing child and spousal support based on the respondent's last disclosed income, finding the applicant entitled to compensatory and needs-based support.

Following the dismissal of the parents' appeal in a child protection matter, the successful Society sought costs.

The parents argued that costs should not be awarded in child welfare proceedings and that they acted in good faith.

The court found that the parents engaged in bad faith litigation by making baseless allegations of professional misconduct, racism, and collusion against the Society's counsel and the court.

To express disapproval of this reprehensible conduct, the court awarded the Society substantial indemnity costs fixed at $44,703.60.

The plaintiff in the Severance action moved for an order extending the time to set two related motor vehicle accident cases down for trial until December 31, 2024.

All parties consented except the Ministry of Transportation and Carillion Canada.

The court found that the opposing defendants would not be prejudiced by the extension, whereas the plaintiffs and other defendants would suffer prejudice if forced to set the actions down while a leave to appeal decision regarding discovery refusals was pending.

The motion to extend the time was granted.

The plaintiffs moved for an order extending the time to set two motor vehicle accident cases down for trial until December 31, 2024.

All parties consented except the Ministry of Transportation and Carillion Canada.

The court found that the opposing defendants would not be prejudiced by the extension, whereas the plaintiffs and other defendants would suffer prejudice if forced to set the action down while an appeal regarding a refusals motion was pending.

The motion to extend the time was granted.

The mother brought a motion to determine the school enrollment of the parties' four-year-old child.

The mother sought enrollment in a French Immersion program, while the father, who had unilaterally enrolled the child in an English program contrary to a prior order requiring joint decision-making, sought to maintain the English enrollment.

The court found that it was in the child's best interests to have the opportunity to master French, noting the child's French-Canadian heritage and the benefits of bilingualism.

The court ordered the child to be enrolled in the French Immersion school and directed that both parents, the father's grandmother, and the mother's partner be listed as emergency contacts.

The moving party, the former husband, brought a motion to change a 1993 spousal support order, seeking to terminate or reduce his support obligations following his retirement.

The responding party, the former wife, opposed the motion and sought an increase in support to $750 per month.

The court found that while both parties had retired, the responding party continued to suffer economic disadvantage from the marriage and required ongoing support.

The moving party's motion was dismissed, and the responding party's request for an increase was granted, raising the spousal support to $750 per month.

The defendant was wholly successful on a motion requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs and sought partial indemnity costs of $14,518.73.

The plaintiff argued for $5,000 to $6,000 but filed its bill of costs late, which the court declined to consider.

The court disallowed time claimed for legal assistants but noted the plaintiff had filed voluminous unnecessary materials, justifying the defendant's time spent reviewing them.

The court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendant at $10,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff moved to amend its statement of claim to continue the action under the simplified procedure.

The defendants did not oppose the amendment but sought costs unnecessarily incurred under Rule 76.13.

The court previously awarded these costs and reserved the costs of the motion itself.

In this decision, the court determined the quantum of costs for the successful defendant, Concrete Walls, fixing them at $10,000 plus HST on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff moved to amend its statement of claim to reduce its damages from $500,000 to $60,461.87, thereby transferring the action from the ordinary procedure to the simplified procedure.

The defendants consented to the amendment but sought substantial indemnity costs for expenses unnecessarily incurred by the plaintiff's initial choice of procedure.

The court found that the plaintiff knew or should have known the claim fell within the simplified procedure limits before issuing the claim.

The court granted the amendment and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' unnecessarily incurred costs and disbursements on a substantial indemnity basis, deferring the issue of Rule 76.13(3) cost consequences to the trial judge.

The court determined the costs of an application to wind-up two corporations and a related action, following years of protracted and bitter litigation.

The applicants were largely successful and sought enhanced costs, including against a non-party shareholder.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs for several motions due to the respondents' vexatious and obstructive conduct.

The court also awarded costs to a self-represented litigant for time spent performing work ordinarily done by a lawyer.

The non-party shareholder was held jointly and severally liable for a portion of the costs in the action due to her unreasonable refusal of settlement offers.

At a status hearing, the court considered whether to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for delay under Rule 48.14(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action, which involved a shareholder dispute, had been commenced in 2012 and was inextricably linked to a separate application to wind up the corporations.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, having made a strategic decision to await the outcome of the application before proceeding with the action.

Finding that the defendants would suffer prejudice if the action proceeded, the court dismissed the action for delay.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the defendant for unpaid tree harvesting charges totaling $80,672.01.

The defendant, who was self-represented, claimed an Aboriginal or Métis right to harvest trees and argued the fees were unconstitutional.

However, the defendant failed to file any affidavit evidence to support his Métis status, his constitutional claims, or to dispute the calculation of the fees.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.

The applicant father sought to confirm a provisional order from Manitoba terminating his child support obligation for his adult son.

The mother opposed, arguing the son remained a child of the marriage due to post-secondary studies and medical issues.

The court found the son ceased to be a child of the marriage after high school, but re-qualified during an 18-month period of post-secondary education.

The provisional order was confirmed with a variation, terminating support temporarily, reinstating it during the son's studies, and then terminating it permanently.