Marc R. Labrosse

This costs endorsement follows an 8-day trial in a family law matter concerning parenting, decision-making, child support arrears, and equalization.

The applicant was substantially successful on the most important issues, including parenting capacity and the date of separation, but was unsuccessful on imputed income and equalization claims.

The respondent's unreasonable conduct, unstable personal circumstances, and unrealistic positions significantly complicated the proceedings.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant but reduced the claimed amount due to excessive hourly rates charged by Toronto counsel and applied to an Ottawa matter.

Damages claims for family violence were rejected as inappropriate and unsettled in law.

This is a costs decision following a six-day family law trial that commenced in January 2024 and concluded in April 2024.

The respondent was the successful party on virtually all issues.

The court awarded costs to the respondent, finding that while the respondent was entitled to costs as the successful party, the amount claimed was excessive and not properly itemized.

The court reduced the costs award to account for proportionality and the financial circumstances of the applicant, who remains burdened with significant debt and child support arrears.

This decision addresses the terms of a court-ordered buy-sell process between two dental practice shareholders following a deadlock.

The court determined that it would not fix the value of the dental practice for the buy-sell notice and rejected the applicant's request for a price reduction based on the respondent's role as the working dentist.

The court found that the parties' negotiated draft shareholders' agreement, which included differential non-competition provisions, adequately protected the applicant's interests.

The final buy-sell notice was approved with only the purchase prices to be inserted by each party.

The plaintiff brought an action for defamation arising from a Facebook post made by his ex-wife, the defendant, approximately two years after the end of their roughly ten-year marriage.

The defendant counterclaimed for defamation and sexual battery.

The parties had lived in Los Angeles and were involved in the online gaming and pornography industries.

Their marriage was polyamorous in nature.

The defendant's Facebook post alleged that the plaintiff had sexually, physically, and emotionally abused her and other women during their marriage.

The court found that while many of the defendant's statements were truthful or constituted fair comment, certain statements regarding sexual assault, physical violence, and lack of consent were defamatory and not supported by the evidence.

The court dismissed the defendant's counterclaim for sexual battery, finding insufficient evidence of non-consensual sexual activity.

The plaintiff was awarded general damages for defamation.

The court considered motions for costs personally against George Windsor, who commenced proceedings on behalf of Gilles Jozias Overtveld and Gi-Las Management and Maintenance Ltd. without proper authority.

The action was found to be duplicative, meritless, and a waste of resources.

The court fixed costs on a substantial indemnity basis against Mr. Windsor personally, disallowed him from charging legal fees to the plaintiffs, and set out the principles for awarding costs in such circumstances.

This decision addresses the division of proceeds and adjustments following the partition and sale of jointly owned property at 7 Main Street, Odessa, Ontario.

The court considers the parties’ respective claims for adjustments, including occupation rent, reimbursement for expenses, and capital contributions.

The court orders that the respondent be reimbursed for half of his maintenance and repair costs, and that both parties share equally in increased mortgage interest payments since the mortgage expired.

The respondent is given 30 days to negotiate a buyout of the applicant’s interest, failing which the property will be listed for sale.

The court remains seized of the sale process to resolve any disputes.

The court addresses a family law dispute between Chadia Abou-Assaly and Mounir El-Saikali, involving issues of decision-making responsibility, child support, equalization of net family property, and resulting trust claims over two properties.

The court finds that the applicant is entitled to a 50% beneficial interest in both the Foxden and Forestglade properties by way of resulting trust, sets the date of separation as August 13, 2019, and orders child support and arrears based on imputed income.

The court also addresses the respondent's self-represented status, disclosure failures, and the need for further proceedings to finalize equalization and support calculations.

The court considered two motions: (1) by the Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim (the 501 Parties) for leave to file a Fresh as Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, and (2) by the Plaintiffs/Defendants by Counterclaim (the 2B Parties) for a further and better Affidavit of Documents.

The court granted the 501 Parties' motion, finding no abuse of process or limitation period bar, and authorized the Amended Pleading.

The court also largely granted the 2B Parties' request for further production, ordering disclosure of missing bank records and email attachments, and set out a process for resolving any further disputes over redactions or missing documents.

The court considered an application under the Partition Act for the sale of a jointly owned property in Odessa, Ontario.

The applicant, Caralee Madelyn Paul, sought partition and sale of the property she co-owned with the respondent, Jeffrey Dean Baker.

The court reviewed the parties’ financial contributions, the trust agreement, and the circumstances of the property’s acquisition.

The court found that both parties were 50% beneficial owners and that the applicant was entitled to partition and sale, subject to accounting for contributions and adjustments.

The court rejected arguments based on resulting trust, unjust enrichment, and oppression, and set out a process for adjustments, potential buyout, and sale.

Le jugement porte sur la qualification des contributions financières faites par Sylvain Laplante à Karen Bellemare lors de leur relation de fait, notamment en lien avec l'achat et l'entretien d'une résidence.

Le tribunal conclut que les contributions de Laplante ne constituaient pas un loyer, mais donnaient plutôt ouverture à une fiducie résultoire et à une réparation pour enrichissement sans cause, en raison de l'absence d'intention de donation et de la contribution substantielle de Laplante à la mise de fonds et aux dépenses de la propriété.

La décision détaille les critères applicables à la fiducie résultoire, à l'enrichissement sans cause et à la coentreprise familiale, et fixe la compensation monétaire due.

This decision concerns the penalty phase of a contempt motion in a high-conflict family law matter.

The Respondent mother sought a declaration that the Applicant father was in breach of several paragraphs of a final order regarding parenting time, communication, and information sharing.

The court found the Applicant in contempt for multiple breaches, including failing to comply with parenting time provisions, disseminating information contrary to the order, and contacting the child surreptitiously.

The court concluded that the Applicant’s right to progress to unsupervised parenting time is suspended pending a Motion to Change, given his ongoing defiance and lack of remorse.

The matter is to proceed to a focused Motion to Change, with case management to ensure a manageable evidentiary record.

The appellant was convicted of operating a conveyance over 80.

The appeal concerned whether the trial judge erred in finding a valid Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand existed, even after excising a compelled statement about alcohol consumption.

The appellant argued the trial judge replaced a subjective/objective test with an objective/objective test for the officer's grounds.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly assessed the officer's subjective belief, considering the circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable police officer, and that the finding of subjective reasonable suspicion was supported by evidence even without the compelled statement.

The moving party, Raymond Carby-Samuels, brought a motion seeking to set aside a 2017 declaration of vexatious litigant and for leave to pursue new claims in Small Claims Court.

The court found no jurisdiction to set aside the prior decision, which had been upheld on appeal.

The motion was dismissed because the moving party failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet the criteria under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act for rescinding a vexatious litigant order or granting leave to proceed, and his draft statements of claim were improperly pleaded.

The court noted the moving party's unhinged behaviour during the hearing and his unsubstantiated allegations of racial discrimination.

This endorsement addresses cross-motions for interim relief in a family law matter involving parenting, mobility, child support, and matrimonial home issues.

The applicant sought interim custody, a move-back order for the children from Saskatchewan to Ontario, and transfer of the matrimonial home deed, among other things.

The respondent sought interim decision-making, virtual parenting time, child support, and partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The court declined to grant most temporary relief, finding that the complex issues, including significant credibility and mobility concerns, required a full trial.

The court ordered the applicant to commence child support payments, mandated communication via an online parenting application, and required the applicant to provide evidence of his ability to buy out the respondent's interest in the matrimonial home.

The court emphasized the need for case management to prepare the matter for trial, particularly regarding the children's best interests given their relocation to Saskatchewan.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion to correct misnomers and add several corporate entities as defendants in an action stemming from a fire.

The motion sought to correct the name of "Cooper Lighting Internacional, S. de R.L. de C.V." to "Cooper Lighting de Mexico S. de R.L. de C.V." and to add "Cooper Lighting LLC", "Cooper Lighting Canada Limited", "SLP Lighting LLC", "Koller Enterprises", and "David Koller".

Applying the principles of misnomer from Loy-English, the court found that the "litigation finger" pointed at the Cooper Lighting entities and SLP Lighting LLC, allowing their addition/correction despite delays.

However, the requests to add Koller Enterprises and David Koller were dismissed due to insufficient evidence of their direct involvement as manufacturers or distributors.

The court exercised its discretion to grant the amendments, noting the lack of non-compensable prejudice to the proposed defendants and shared responsibility for litigation delays.

This trial addressed divorce, decision-making, parenting time, child support (retroactive and prospective), date of separation, and equalization of net family property.

The court granted the Applicant mother sole decision-making authority, imputed the Respondent father's income at minimum wage for support purposes, and ordered retroactive child support arrears to be paid from funds held in trust.

Prospective child support was also based on imputed minimum wage.

The Applicant's claim for private school expenses was denied, and the court found that the Applicant owed the Respondent a modest equalization payment.

The long-term parenting schedule was deferred for further case management.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking contempt findings against the applicant father for numerous breaches of a final order concerning parenting time, communication, and child-related decisions.

The applicant filed a cross-motion seeking substantive changes to the final order, which the court dismissed as it was not authorized as a motion to change.

The court found the applicant in contempt of multiple paragraphs of the final order, including failing to delete compromising material, sending inappropriate messages via Our Family Wizard (OFW), unauthorized communications with the child through video games, interfering with the child's therapy, withholding the child's health card and passport, and disseminating information about court proceedings and disparaging the respondent on social media.

The court declined to find the applicant in contempt for non-payment of support/costs or for not progressing parenting stages.

The respondent was not found in contempt regarding video call issues.

The matter was set to proceed to the penalty phase for the applicant's contempt.

The applicant brought a motion seeking extensive financial disclosure from the respondent and third-party corporate entities, alleging the respondent had significant control over family-related corporations.

The respondent contended he was merely an employee or minority shareholder with no control.

The court found that the respondent exercised direct or indirect influence or control in fact over the family corporations, largely due to the respondent's and third parties' failure to provide sufficient evidence clarifying his role and the corporate restructuring.

The court granted the applicant's disclosure order, requiring the respondent and several corporate entities to provide comprehensive financial and corporate records to enable a full assessment of the respondent's financial interests for equalization and income for child and spousal support.

The respondent's cross-motion for the applicant's travel information was adjourned, and one specific third-party disclosure request was denied as speculative.

The applicant, Claude Bachand, sought a declaration of his 25% beneficial interest in a jointly owned property, the sale proceeds of which were held in trust.

The property was originally purchased by the applicant and respondent Danielle Leclair, with both holding 50% in trust for respondent Marc Agostini.

The applicant claimed his 25% interest arose from his role as a grantor on the mortgage, while respondent Leclair argued she held beneficial ownership over his interest, relying on principles of purchase money resulting trust.

The court found that the applicant failed to rebut the presumption of a purchase money resulting trust, as he did not contribute financially to the property's acquisition or ongoing expenses.

The court concluded that the applicant held his interest in trust for Danielle Leclair, entitling her to the remaining net proceeds of sale after Marc Agostini's agreed-upon share.

The Carp Agricultural Society (CAS) revoked Laurie Dillon's membership, alleging conflict of interest and breach of fiduciary duty related to her family's involvement in the sale of an estate property where CAS was a beneficiary.

Dillon sought an order to nullify the decision and reinstate her membership.

CAS brought a cross-application to declare breaches of duty.

The court found that the CAS Board breached natural justice rules in its investigation and decision-making process, including procedural flaws and lack of proper reasons.

The court also determined that Dillon was not in a conflict of interest as defined by the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010, nor did she breach her fiduciary duties, as the transactions did not involve the CAS directly but rather the Estate Trustee.

The court set aside the revocation of membership and dismissed the CAS's cross-application.